I’ve been listening to the Harry Potter audiobooks (which I recommend – the reader for the U.S. version, Jim Dale, does a very nice job. I can’t speak to other versions)
Anyway, I’ve noticed a lot of sentences like the following:
“Harry felt more warmly to her than he had done until now.”
This strikes me as odd, as I would say:
“Harry felt more warmly to her than he had until now.”
The word “done” seems superfluous to me. Really, the author is saying “Harry felt more warmly than he had felt” where the second “felt” is implied.
My question is: Is the inclusion of the word “done” an English/British thing, or is it just a J. K. Rowling thing? (Or, is it an everybody thing and I’m just the weirdo who doesn’t speak like that?)
It’s an example of the past perfect tense. Both the present perfect and past perfect are more common in British English than in American English, in which the simple present and simple past are almost always used.
He felt more wamly towards her than he had felt for a long time wouldn’t be incorrect, but it much more likely be spoken He felt more warmly towards her than he had for a long time. That the speaker intends the meaning of ‘felt’ to carry over to the second clause is understood.
To be clear, I’m not asking about the omission of the second word “felt”. The part I find odd is the inclusion of the word “done”.
This sounds like we’re getting somewhere, but I thought perfect tense was indicated by the word “had”. E.g., “had felt” is past perfect, whereas “felt” is simple past. Is that right?
If so, I’m still not seeing where the word “done” comes from. If I were to say, “Harry felt more warmly to her than he had until now”, I’m still speaking in the same tense as if I said “than he had done until now”, aren’t I?
To reiterate, neither the use of the word “had” nor the omission of a second “felt” sounds odd to me. But the inclusion of the word “done” sounds very strange to my ear.
But in the examples on those pages, they don’t actually have to use “had done” to make it past perfect, just “had”.
For instance:
Likewise, I would think that if I said “He felt more warmly than he had [felt]”, then “had [felt]” is already in the past perfect tense.
In other words, I get that saying “than he did” is a different tense than saying “than he had done”. But I’m saying what sounds right to me is “than he had” (no done), which I think is the same tense as “than he had done.”
If I’m reading you and the OP correctly, then you still haven’t caught on to what the OP is asking about.
The OP is not asking why “had done” is in the sentence he quoted. Rather, the OP is asking why “done” is in the sentence. He’s not asking what tense “had done” is, but rather, is asking why the sentence uses “had done” to construct the past perfect instead of the (apparently to the OP) more natural way to construct that tense–using “had” alone, omitting any following verb.
To explain further: All three of the following sentences have phrases in the past perfect:
“He felt more warmly than he had done before”
“He felt more warmly than he had felt before”
“He felt more warmly than he had before.”
The OP asks why “done” is included in the sentence he quoted. He mentions that to him, the third option listed above seems a more natural way to write. The distinction between the first and the third sentence is not that the first uses past perfect while the third does not–they both do. Rather the difference is that the first constructs the past perfect using the word “done” while the third omits “done”.
The OP’s question, then, can be paraphrased thus: “Why does this writer construct the past perfect using ‘had done’ when it seems more natural to me to construct the past perfect just using ‘had’, omitting any verb afterwards? Is this a Britishism?” To answer this question by pointing out that “had done” is the past perfect is perfectly irrelevant.
It’s just a different turn of phrase, that’s all. If it jars to you when you read it, try mentally sounding it out as:
“Harry felt more warmly to her than he’d done until now.”
Put the emphasis on the word “done”. It’s a fairly common British construction, if slightly archaic nowadays. Don’t read too much into it - it’s just variation for the sake of it really.
I don’t think it’s a particularly British thing. Both the “had done” and the “had” versions sound alright to me, although somehow I do prefer “had done”. Maybe because I’m expecting a verb after the “had”, so it’s ever so slightly jarring to go straight into “until”?
I have noticed a reversal of this in American English vs. British English in some tense.
Brits would say “I bought the paint”, but rarely say “I did buy the paint” unless it were a particularly assertive statement (e.g. to contradict an accusation), whereas I’ve noticed the latter usage a lot in the US in regular speech reporting an action.
What I think you’re missing is that the constructions are not equivalent.
“Harry felt more warmly to her than he had done until now.”
“Harry felt more warmly to her than he had until now.”
“Harry felt more warmly to her than he did until now.”
The last sentence is the simple past. It is a statement of fact.
The middle statement shows the importance of the passing of time, which places it in the perfect.
The first sentence does two things. First it correctly substitutes “had done” for “did”. And it also conveys that the change in feeling is more important than the mere change in time.
I think that Rowling’s intention was to contrast sentence 1 with sentence 3. I admit that without full context it’s hard to guess intention and I also admit that I’m not an expert on British usage. But since sentence 1 is the proper grammatical variation of sentence 3, past perfect is a more common usage in British English, and the full impact of the sentence gains from the change, my personal sense is that’s why she would opt for that construction. Especially if she uses it often.
Are those supposed to be the same three sentences as the ones I had in my post? Because they’re not. [ETA: I see now you were responding to Tim, not to me as I had thought before. I’ll leave this post for whatever value it might have in clarifying the question. And also in case you did mean the three sentences to be the same as mine.] In the second, you have “had” where I have “had felt.” In the third, you have “did” where I had “had”*.
As you acknowledge below, your second sentence (same as my third) is in the past perfect. That’s exactly my point–both with and without “done” the phrase in question is in the P.Perfect. The OP’s question is why use “had done” to construct the P.Perfect when simply saying “had” is (to his ears) a more natural way to construct the P.Perfect.
If your three sentences weren’t supposed to be the same sentences as my three, then I’m not sure how your point is supposed to be relevant.
Again: The question is not “Why use the past perfect here instead of the simple past” but rather “Why use ‘had done’ to construct the past perfect rather than simply ‘had’?”
-FrL-
*John where Sally had had had had had had had had had Had had had had to be the correct usage. <—Use punctuation to make sense out of this.
What’s your evidence for this claim? The cites you gave above do not distinguish between “had” and “had done” in these kinds of contexts.
Here’s another pair:
“I slept better than I had done before.”
“I slept better than I had before.”
It seems that according to you, the relevant clause of the second sentence is in the past perfect, and shows the importance of the passing of time, while the relevant clause of the first sentence conveys that the change in sleep quality is more important than the passing in time. Do I have you right?
If so, then in general, you’re saying that constructions of the form [Sentence-Comparative-Than-“Had Hone” Clause] convey that the change in quality of the thing compared is more important than the passage of time, while sentences of the form [Sentence-Comparative-Than-“Had Clause”] only show that the passage of time is important.
Is that the general principle you’re trying to adduce? If so, what is your evidence for the claim that the principle is valid?
I’m not competent to comment on the grammatical forms (I went to school at a period when grammar was deemed to be unimportant in teaching English :rolleyes: ) but as a British reader the construction does not feel odd to me and I would accept the reason proposed by **Expano Mapcase ** - it emphasises the change in Harry’s feelings.
