[Grammar] began/had begun

[LaMelange]

Hello all,

In the following passage, is the verb form began correct or should it be had begun?

Also during the second decade of the twentieth century, the federal income tax was instituted, allowing personal contributions to philanthropy to become tax deductible. On the heels of this major legislation came World War I. This changed philanthropy immeasurably by expanding the role of government. For example, by 1920 states began to initiate programs for needy children, the elderly, and some individuals with disabilities, such as the blind. New York offered unemployment relief. These groundbreaking events moved the nation to increased dependency upon the federal government in providing relief. By the time Franklin D. Roosevelt became president, the problems of the Depression era caused the establishment of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. Although it lasted only for three years, it had a lasting effect on how philanthropy and charity were viewed by Americans.

(This is a paragraph from a chapter I was working on.)

 

[MikeNewYork]

For me "began" works fine.

 

[LaMelange]

Mike, could you please explain why had begun is not required here?

 

[Matthew Wai]

LaMelange, why do you think the past perfect is needed here?

 

[Tdol]

Mike, could you please explain why had begun is not required here?

I would use had begun because of the time phrase by 1920.

 

[bhaisahab]

I would use "had begun",too.

 

[emsr2d2]

"Had begun" for me too, after "by".

In 1920, they began ...
By 1920, they had begun ...

 

[Boris Tatarenko]

However I'm not a native speaker nor a teacher, I'd definitely go for "had begun" :-D.

 

[Rover_KE]

[STRIKE]However[/STRIKE] Although I'm not a native speaker nor a teacher, I'd definitely go for "had begun".:-D

`

 

[MikeNewYork]

The sentence flows and makes perfect sense without it. I tend to use perfect tenses only when they are necessary.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Can 'by 1920' be a time marker which obviates the need for the past perfect?

 

[MikeNewYork]

It obviously is for some.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Mike, could you please explain why had begun is not required here?

I think the explanation is that the time marker 'by 1920' has already established the time sequence.

 

[MikeNewYork]

That is the way I see it, Matthew. That doesn't make the past perfect wrong, just optional.

 

[Raymott]

Matthew, the time sequence is not the only arbiter of the use of the past perfect. "Had begun" is the only natural way to write this in AusE.

 

[Matthew Wai]

All who would use 'had begun' in this thread are not AmE speakers, who might find 'began' natural as MikeNewYork does.

 

[bhaisahab]

It would seem that, at least in respect of this question, AmE is unique among all the other varieties of English, Matthew.

 

[Raymott]

It would seem that, at least in respect of this question, AmE is unique among all the other varieties of English, Matthew.

I wouldn't go that far. On the evidence, all we can say is that Mike is unique among those who have given opinions. There is more than one possible interpretation of that.

 

[LaMelange]

LaMelange, why do you think the past perfect is needed here?

Same reason as suggested by Tdol. Also because there was a similar sentence (by followed by a year) in the next paragraph with the main verb in past perfect tense.

 

[LaMelange]

Matthew, the time sequence is not the only arbiter of the use of the past perfect. "Had begun" is the only natural way to write this in AusE.

Why does this not surprise me?! British English, American English, Canadian English, Australian English (I am aware that Australians have their own dictionary as well. One particular project required Australian English.) ...