to have more problems than you (had) expected

[cubezero3]

get more than you bargained for - to have more problems than you had expected
Longman Pocket Idioms Dictionary First Edition

I would use the simple present tense here. But I do vaguely recall seeing similar usage of the past perfect tense on several occasions. So I guess this usage is not wrong.
Is there a reason the past perfect tense is used instead of the simple present tense? I know the common usage is when you have a past event and need to expressly place another past event before it. This doesn't seem the case.
On a side note, is it possible to use the present perfect tense in its stead?

 

[jutfrank]

I would use the simple present tense here. But I do vaguely recall seeing similar usage of the past perfect tense on several occasions. So I guess this usage is not wrong.

No, it's not wrong. In fact, it's quite a nice example.

Is there a reason the past perfect tense is used instead of the simple present tense?

Of course there's a reason. It's to sequence the expectation before the actual having of the problems. First you expect few or no problems, then later you have more than you had at first anticipated.

 

[emsr2d2]

I would use the simple present tense here no full stop here but I do vaguely recall seeing similar usage of the past perfect tense on several occasions no full stop here so I guess this usage is not wrong.
Is there a reason the past perfect tense is used instead of the simple present tense? I know the common usage is when you have a past event and need to expressly place another past event before it. This doesn't seem to be the case.
On a side note, is it possible to use the present perfect tense in its stead instead?

Please note my comments and corrections above. Even at your level, I would discourage you from trying to start sentences with "but" and "so" (along with "and" and "or").

 

[Tarheel]

@cubezero3 It's not too late to change the title of this thread so that it matches the phrase in question.

 

[cubezero3]

@cubezero3 It's not too late to change the title of this thread so that it matches the phrase in question.

Thank you, Tarheel. It's a crying shame I didn't spot that one. I proofread all the time. For some strange reason it never occurred to me even once that I should proofread the text in my titles.

 

[cubezero3]

No, it's not wrong. In fact, it's quite a nice example.



Of course there's a reason. It's to sequence the expectation before the actual having of the problems. First you expect few or no problems, then later you have more than you had at first anticipated.

Thank you, jutfrank. That's a concise and brilliant answer.
I want to confirm whether my understanding of your reply is correct. This is how I picture the sequence of events:

1. You had expected the problems.
2. The problems occurred.
3. Now we are talking about it.

With this in mind, I'm now questioning my original plan to use the simple present tense, which now seems to be a bad idea. It's not wrong, I suppose, as the act of expecting did happen in the past. The problem with this option is that in choosing it, the writer fails to give the full picture, causing the nuance to be lost. The same can be said about the use of the present perfect tense here.

 

[cubezero3]

Please note my comments and corrections above. Even at your level, I would discourage you from trying to start sentences with "but" and "so" (along with "and" and "or").

Thank you, emsr2d2. You always patiently point out areas of improvement one can make. Throughout the years, I have benefited a lot from your various replies.

I'd take your advice and try not to start my sentences with these four conjunctions.

I did my homework on the Internet last night and now have a general idea why I should follow this advice. The articles I read say that it's a matter of style and in a formal register people just don't place such words as 'but' at the beginning of a sentence.

I'd like to know whether this advice only applies to the four conjunctions you mentioned.

PS: For the time being, it feels strange not to start a sentence with 'but' and I have to consciously refrain from doing so. I can see the immediate improvement to the text I write, though. 'No buts', from this moment on. I wish I could do the same with the jarring 'I's.

 

[jutfrank]

This is how I picture the sequence of events:

1. You had expected the problems.
2. The problems occurred.
3. Now we are talking about it.

You've got the three sequenced points in time right, yes.

With this in mind, I'm now questioning my original plan to use the simple present tense, which now seems to be a bad idea.

The simple present doesn't make any sense. You can't currently have more problems than you currently expect because the verb 'expect' always relates to a future time.

It's not wrong, I suppose, as the act of expecting did happen in the past. The problem with this option is that in choosing it, the writer fails to give the full picture, causing the nuance to be lost.

No, it is wrong because it doesn't make sense. Review your understanding of the meaning of the verb 'expect'.

The same can be said about the use of the present perfect tense here.

The present perfect is possible in the context, and so is the past simple. But the present simple is not.