In grammar, the sequence of tenses (known in Latin as consecutio temporum, and also known as agreement of tenses, succession of tenses, tense harmony, and backshifting) is a rule of a particular language governing the relationship between the grammatical tenses of verbs in related clauses or sentences to show the temporal relationship of the events to which they refer.
Contents |
In Latin a primary tense (simple present tense, present perfect, simple future tense, or future perfect) in the superordinate clause is followed by primary tense in the subordinate clauses, and a historic "tense" in the superordinate clause (imperfect, perfect, or pluperfect) is followed by a historic tense in the subordinate clause. In Latin the "Consecutio temporum",(sequence of the tenses) is a gathering of rules that are followed in the subordination of Latin clauses. The Consecutio Temporum is used with the Indicative, Subjunctive and Infinitive Moods. The Infinitive Mood is used in Dependent Noun Clauses, in which the subject is expressed in accusative and the verb at the infinitive mood. The tense is Present Infinitive if the action in the Clause is contemporary to the action of the independent main clause; it is Perfect Infinitive if the dependent verb is anterior to the verb of the independent; it is Future Infinitive if it happens after the action of the independent is over. Some types of dependent clauses have the verb in the Indicative Mood. If the independent's action is contemporary to the dependent's, here the tense will be the same as in the independent. If the relation of tenses is of posterioriy you will use the future participle plus the present simple of sum (active periphrastic) in the dependent. If the relation is of anteriority it changes: if the verb in the independent is a Present Indicative tense, the verb in the dependent clause will be in a Perfect tense. If the independent's verb is an Imperfect tense, the dependent's will be a Pluperfect, if the dependent's is Future simple, the dependent's wil be Future perfect. The Consecutio Temporum of the Subjunctive Mood is much more difficult, and also the most used in the dependent Clauses, but we can remember the whole following of Latin tenses in these tables:
| Contemporaniety | Present amare |
| Anteriority | Perfect amavisse |
| Posteriority | Future amaturum,-a,-um esse/amaturos,-as,-a esse |
| SUPERORD. CL. | SUBORD. CL. |
| Present (amo) | Perfect (amavi) |
| Imperfect (amabam) | Pluperfect (amaveram) |
| Future simple (amabo) | Future Perfect (amavero) |
| SUPERORD. CL. | SUBORD. CLAUSE | ||
| Type of Tense | Contemporaniety | Anteriority | Posteriority |
| Primary | Present Subj. (amem) | Perfect Subj. (amaverim) | Future Participle+ Present Subj. of "sum" (amaturus sim) |
| Historical | Imperfect Subj. (amarem) | Pluperfect Subj. (amavissem) | Future Participle+ Imperfect Subj. of "sum"(amaturus essem) |
In Classical Greek, the tenses in subordinate clauses must correspond to those in the superordinate clauses governing them.[2]
A principal tense (present tense, future tense, or future perfect) in the superordinate clause is followed by a principal tense in the indicative mood or subjunctive mood. Such a principal tense is followed by:[2]
A historical tense (imperfect, pluperfect, or aorist) in the superordinate clause is followed by a historical tense in the indicative mood or optative mood. Such a historic tense is followed by:[2]
In fact, since Greek tenses express the aspect of the verb, not the time, we don't have the "Consecutio Temporum", but the "Consecutio Modorum", the sequence of the Moods.
In English there are several views as to the exact rules governing the sequence of tenses, particularly with respect to verbs in superordinate and subordinate clauses, and debate over this point amongst grammarians that goes back as far as the 18th century.[3]
One view is the natural sequence of tenses. According to this view, the tense of a verb in a subordinate clause is not determined by the tense of the verb in the superordinate clause, but is determined simply according to the sense of the clause taken apart from the rest of the sentence.[3]
In this view, both of the following sentences are proper. The tense of the main verb "say" does not affect the tense of the subordinate verb "need", which remains in the present tense because it describes a continuing state of affairs.
Improper sentences, in this view, do not correctly express the author's intent. In the following two examples (the first from Macaulay) only the latter expresses the author's meaning clearly and correctly:[4]
The rule for writers following the natural sequence of tenses can be expressed as follows: Imagine yourself at the point in time denoted by the main verb, and use the tense for the subordinate verb that you would have used at that time.[5]
Another view is the attracted sequence of tenses. According to this view, the tense of a verb in a subordinate clause is determined by the tense of the verb in the superordinate clause. It is this view, and the problems that it causes, that has generated the most discussion amongst grammarians.[3]
The attracted sequence can be summarized as follows: If the main verb of a sentence is in the past tense, then other verbs must also express a past viewpoint, except when a general truth is being expressed.[6]
In the attracted sequence, therefore, the second of the Batman examples would be corrected so that the subordinate verb was in the past tense:
The attracted sequence rule causes problems for indirect speech or incorporated quotations. Proponents of the rule specify various circumlocutions to avoid these problems. One such problem is the following sentence, where the subordinate verb in the incorporated quotation is in the present tense, but is required to be in the past tense, per the main verb, in order to obey the attracted sequence rule:[6]
Proponents of this rule state that such sentences have to be corrected in one of two ways:[6]