[Grammar] by 1960, this figure had doubled.

[meir4ever]

In the year 1900 just over 4% of the population was aged over 65. However, by 1960 this figure had doubled.

My question: Why we used past perfect simple in the second sentence, if we talk about thing that happened after (in 1960 compared to 1900)?

 

[Boris Tatarenko]

Re: Grammar question

I suggest you provide the whole passage because I'm sure you'll find out that you've just omitted some very useful indicators which show why you should use the past perfect here.

 

[GoesStation]

Re: Grammar question

In the year 1900 just over 4% of the population was aged over 65. However, by 1960 this figure had doubled.

My question: Why we used past perfect simple in the second sentence, if we talk about thing that happened after (in 1960 compared to 1900)?

1960 is in the past and we're talking about something from that frame of reference. The doubling had already occurred, so the past perfect is the right choice.

 

[emsr2d2]

Re: Grammar question

It's the use of "by" followed by a date in the past that creates the need for the past perfect.

I've been trying to lose weight for six months but by last Saturday, I had lost only half a kilo.

The "loss of half a kilo" happened before last Saturday, and last Saturday happened before today (when I am speaking) so the past perfect is appropriate.

In your original example, the "doubling of the percentage" happened before (hence "by") 1960 and 1960 is before now.

[Cross-posted with GoesStation, whose explanation is better than mine! ]

 

[meir4ever]

Re: Grammar question

Ok, I understood.
Thank you

 

[GoesStation]

Re: Grammar question

[Cross-posted with GoesStation, whose explanation is better than mine! ]

That's funny, I was thinking "that's a better explanation than mine" when I got to your disclaimer!

 

[emsr2d2]

Re: Grammar question

I think each complements the other.

And then we compliment each other. Neat.

 

[Raymott]

Re: Grammar question

"Why we used past perfect simple ..."

The past perfect is not a simple tense, since it uses an auxiliary, making it compound. I know that there are pages on the web that talk about the past perfect simple (I guess to differentiate it from the continuous past perfect), but that's unusual.
Traditionally, there are simple tenses and compound tenses. I don't see a need to change that.

 

[Rover_KE]

meir4ever, please note that I have changed your thread title.

Extract from the Posting Guidelines:

'Thread titles should include all or part of the word/phrase being discussed.'