Many of the languages closely related to English have a well-developed imperfect tense, that tense which shows a past action or condition as incomplete, continuous, or coincident with another action. This is true with Greek, Spanish, Italian, French, and most of the other Romance languages; they all elaborately inflect or morph their verbs for the imperfect. Those who have tried memorizing the many Spanish inflections for its preterito imperfectos, for instance, know how complicated this could get.

In contrast, English does not inflect its verbs for the imperfect, in much the same way that it doesn’t for its future tense. The farthest English has gone to formally capture the essence of the imperfect—the past imperfect in particular—is the past progressive. The English past progressive, of course, either shows an action in progress at a specific time in the past, or one in progress in the past when another action happened or interrupted it.

To better understand how English evokes the imperfect tense, it will be instructive for us to formally distinguish first between the “imperfect” and “perfect” in traditional grammar. Recall that verbs, apart from indicating the time element, also conveys other information about the verb’s action. This information, which is called aspect, shows whether the action is continuous, complete or incomplete, in progress, or habitual. Some languages, like those mentioned earlier, have several of these aspects and reflect them through the inflections of their verbs. In contrast, English has only two aspects: the perfect, which refers to a past action that was completed or “perfected,” as in “She danced with me,” and the imperfect, which refers to a past action that was still in progress or was incomplete, as in “She was dancing with me.”
  
We can see that the imperfect aspect of English verbs is grammatically formed in the same as their past progressive, which as we know simply combines the past tense of the verb “be” with the main verb’s—ing or present participle form. For the verb “dance,” for instance, the imperfect singular aspect is “was dancing” and the imperfect plural aspect is “were dancing.” Also called the continuous participle, this basic form of the English imperfect is meant to describe an action or event that was in progress in the past. To form the past imperfect, however, we must make it clear that the unfolding action or event was unfinished or interrupted, not “perfected,” as in these sentences: “We were touring Paris when the recall order came.” “She ran the business while her husband was gallivanting in Europe.”

Another way of saying this is that in English, a simple past progressive statement like, say, “We were touring Paris” is not enough to establish the past imperfect aspect. It always needs a time frame established by another past action or condition. Thus, the statement “We were touring Paris” is meaningful only in the context of being an answer to a previously asked question like, say, “What were you doing when the recall order came?” That question, in tandem with the past progressive “We were touring Paris,” establishes the statement’s imperfect aspect.

The past progressive is, thankfully for users of English, not the only way English can evoke the past imperfect. To compensate for its inability to inflect verbs for the various shades of this aspect, the language came up with three other ways of capturing the sense of continuous, incomplete, or coincident past actions. They are as follows:

“Used” + the verb’s infinitive form. This form elegantly expresses repeated, regular, or habitual actions or situations in the past: “We used to dance all night every summer.” “Dreams of Vermont winters used to obsess me in my youth.” “The couple used to host lavish parties until the Asian economic crisis crippled their export business.”

“Would” + the verb’s basic form (the verb stem). “We would dance all night every summer.” “Every night the astronomer would wait for the stars to manifest themselves in the sky.” One caveat here: the past imperfect usage of “would” is not the same as its conditional usage, as in “If the weather were clear, we would dance all night at the terrace.”

The verb’s simple past tense + an adverb of frequency. “We were always dancingpartners in our younger days.” “She often sang each time I played the piano.” “We rarely complained whenever she made impossible demands.”

To sum up, the English past imperfect always conveys the idea of someone doing something or something happening when something else happened. Its job is always to emphasize the continuation or interruption of a past action, in contrast to the past perfect, which always makes sure of putting a finis to that past action.

-------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, March 5, 2004, © 2004 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved. This essay later appeared as Chapter 53 of the author’s book Give Your English the Winning Edge, © 2009 by Jose A. Carillo. All rights reserved.

Click here to discuss/comment

One of the most misunderstood and misused words in English could very well be “however,” which works either as a conjunction or as an adverb. This is because many writers, no matter what their writing style may be and no matter how good their English may look, often tumble and fumble when using this very basic and very important function word.
     
Consider these representative samples of “however” misuse that I have gathered (all italicizations of quoted text mine):

(1) From an online essay on legal matters: “Correctly, both decisions are cited as saying that conversations and correspondence between the President and public officials are privileged…Once a firm decision, however, has been reached, like who will pay for the Venable contract, the conclusion reached is a matter of public concern no longer covered by privilege.”

(2) From a state university’s admission prospectus: “If however, some graduation requirements are completed beyond the deadline, the student must register during the succeeding semester in order to be considered a candidate for graduation as of the end of that semester.”

(3) From an online update on international trade: “The proposal of the United States…has provided a big push to the negotiations. Trade analysts however are quick to point out that the US and EU proposals amount to nothing more than empty promises once again.”

(4) From a newspaper opinion column: “Anyway, the bill proposing the punitive tax has gone through committee deliberations and has been elevated to the plenary stage. Though this has more to do with legislators in customary fashion, humoring rather than indulging their colleague who is spearheading the bill, however, nonsensical its content and intent.”

The sentence in Item 1 shows the classic case of “however” misplacement. Here, “however” works as an adverb to mean “on the other hand” or “in contrast,” so it should logically be placed either at the beginning of the second sentence, where it can link this sentence firmly to its antecedent sentence, or right after the subordinate clause of the second sentence has been stated fully.

But the problem is that many writers habitually sneak “however” just anywhere in their sentences except up front, creating those abrupt interruptions of thought that needlessly bewilder readers. I think this is the result of being taught by English teachers who foist the grammatically, structurally, and semantically ruinous rule never to begin a sentence with “however,” and about this rule I have more to say later.

The quickest way to make cliffhanger “however” constructions smoother and clearer is to put “however” up front: “Correctly, both decisions are cited…However, once a firm decision has been reached, like [on] who will pay for the Venable contract, the conclusion reached is a matter of public concern no longer covered by privilege.” For even better rhythm, though, “however” can be deferred until the subordinate clause has been stated fully: “Correctly, both decisions are cited…Once a firm decision has been reached, however, like [on] who will pay for the Venable contract, the conclusion reached is a matter of public concern no longer covered by privilege.”

It’s likely that the strong resistance to using “however” to begin sentences has also led to the awkward “however” placements in Items 2 and 3. Note that in Item 2, even if the requisite comma after “if” is supplied to make the sentence structurally correct, the sentence would still sound stilted. But simply putting “however” up front fixes the problem, though: “However, if some graduation requirements are completed beyond the deadline, the student must register…”

In Item 3, on the other hand, the dysfunctional placement of “however” makes it difficult for readers to fathom what that word is supposed to be doing. Putting “however” up front clarifies the logic of the statement: “The proposal of the United States…has provided a big push to the negotiations. However, trade analysts are quick to point out that the US and EU proposals amount to nothing more than empty promises once again.”

In Item 4, “however” also functions as an adverb, this time to mean “no matter how” modifying the adjective “nonsensical.” But setting it off between commas has turned the second sentence into gibberish, no matter if the second comma might have been placed there not by the writer but by the proofreader. For the sentence to make sense, though, that second comma has to be dropped so that “however” can logically form part of the phrase that modifies the word “bill”: “Though this has more to do with legislators in customary fashion, humoring rather than indulging their colleague who is spearheading the bill, however nonsensical its content and intent.”

Now let’s examine the awkward consequences of forcing “however” to do a job that’s better performed by the conjunction “but.”

Take a look at the dysfunctional placements of “however” in the following passages:

(1) From a religious website: “To this, we agree. However in recent years, certain details about the Days have become ‘common knowledge’ to friends and family members of Dazers.”

(2) From a civil society website: “Steiner’s ideas found widespread acceptance in a Europe devastated by the First World War. However the hyperinflation of post World War I Germany demolished practical attempts by Steiner and his colleagues to make the threefold society with an active and independent cultural sphere a reality.”

(3) From an online Philippine festival backgrounder: “[Magellan] died in the encounter. That was on April 27, 1521. The remnants of Magellan’s men were however able to return to Spain to report the incident and the possibility of conquest.”

In Item 1, “however” is supposed to mean “on the other hand,” but without the requisite comma to set it off from the contrasting clause, it erroneously gives the sense of “no matter if” and makes the sentence nonsensical. Adding the comma makes the correct sense emerge: “To this, we agree. However, in recent years, certain details about the Days have become ‘common knowledge’ to friends and family members of Dazers.” The rhythm of the statement gets even better when “however” is made to follow “in recent years” instead: “To this, we agree. In recent years, however, certain details about the Days…”

But there’s actually a much more efficient way of constructing such “however” statements. The problem, though, is that many people are afraid to use it because of this other dubious grammar rule taught by some English teachers: Never use “but” to begin a sentence. This rule, which is meant to discourage incomplete sentences, isn’t of much practical value. On the contrary, using “but” instead of “however” to begin sentences makes their construction more forthright and their meaning clearer, as in this reconstruction of the sentence in Item 1: “To this, we agree. But in recent years, certain details about the Days have become common knowledge…”

In Item 2, “but” can also do a much better job than “however” in delivering the contrastive idea. Take a look: “Steiner’s ideas found widespread acceptance in a Europe devastated by the First World War. But the hyperinflation of post World War I Germany demolished practical attempts by Steiner and his colleagues to make the threefold society…” Similarly, the historical vignette in Item 3 flows much better when “but” is used to begin the third sentence: “[Magellan] died in the encounter. That was on April 27, 1521. But the remnants of Magellan's men were able to return to Spain to report the incident and the possibility of conquest.”

Indeed, unless we want a very strong contrast, “but” is often a better choice than “however” in setting two ideas in opposition. And we need not worry about the claim of some grammarians that “but” is not dignified enough to begin sentences in formal writing. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, for one,assures us that “‘but’ may be used to begin a sentence at all levels of style.”

Now we can perhaps already agree on these more sensible ground rules for using “however” and “but”:

(1) Ignore the misguided caveats against beginning a sentence with “however” or “but.” Those rules only impede clear expression and the logical development of ideas. Up front, both “however” and “but” work just fine when used to mean “on the other hand” or “in contrast.” When “however” is used to mean “nevertheless,” though, the best position for it may not be up front in the sentence, and putting it within the sentence may sometimes also be inappropriate. Using “but” instead can usually fix the problem: “The trip is long and costly. But the destination is worth the trouble.”

(2) Although beginning a sentence with “however” is perfectly acceptable, we must minimize doing it. “However” is an extremely emphatic conjunctive adverb, one that tends to sound more important than the contrastive or opposing idea that it introduces. Functionally, “however” serves best as a conjunctive adverb in compound sentences where two independent clauses are strongly set in opposition: “They want the house; however, their money simply is not enough.”

When we use “however” primarily for such compound constructions, we also get the bonus of not being forced to use it much too often to begin sentences, which admittedly can make our sentences sound too irritatingly legalistic.

-------
This essay combines and condenses an original two-part version written by Jose A. Carillo for his weekly column “English Plain and Simple” for the November 14 and 21, 2005 issues of The Manila Times. The original two-part version, in essentially the same form, later appeared as Chapters 109 and 110 of the author’s book Give Your English the Winning Edge, © 2009 by Jose A. Carillo. All rights reserved.

Click here to discuss/comment