Sequence of tenses (concordance des temps)

Summary

When the main verb is in a past tense, the verb in a que-clause "backshifts": présent becomes imparfait, passé composé becomes plus-que-parfait, and futur becomes conditionnel — expressing simultaneity, anteriority and posteriority relative to the past.

Explanation

La concordance des temps ("sequence of tenses") describes how the tense of a subordinate que-clause depends on the tense of the main verb that introduces it. When the main verb is in the present, the subordinate clause simply uses whatever tense fits the real-world timing, with no shift: je sais qu'il viendra (I know he will come). The interesting rules appear when the main verb moves into the past.

Simultaneity: if the action in the que-clause happens at the same time as the main past action, a présent in direct speech becomes an imparfait in the subordinate clause. Direct thought "il est malade" reported after a past main verb gives je savais qu'il était malade (I knew he was sick) — the illness holds at the same time as the knowing, not before or after it.

Anteriority: if the action in the que-clause happened before the main past action, a passé composé (or présent used as a completed fact) becomes a plus-que-parfait. Direct "il est parti" becomes je savais qu'il était parti (I knew he had left) — the leaving is earlier than the knowing.

Posteriority: if the action in the que-clause is to happen after the main past action, a futur simple becomes a conditionnel présent, and this conditional expresses "future in the past", not a hypothesis. Direct "il viendra" becomes je savais qu'il viendrait (I knew he would come). Similarly, a futur antérieur (an anteriority relative to a future point) becomes a conditionnel passé: je savais qu'il aurait fini avant midi (I knew he would have finished before noon).

These backshifts apply to the indicative mood. Subjunctive clauses behave differently in contemporary French: everyday modern usage keeps the subjonctif présent or subjonctif passé in the que-clause regardless of whether the main verb is present or past — je voulais qu'il vienne (not the literary qu'il vînt) and j'étais content qu'il soit venu (not the literary qu'il fût venu). The full backshift into subjonctif imparfait or subjonctif plus-que-parfait survives mainly in formal literary writing and is not expected in ordinary spoken or written French today.

Two closely related domains use exactly this mechanism. usage.reported-speech applies the same backshifts when converting someone's quoted words into indirect speech after a past reporting verb (il a dit que...). conjugation.conditionnel-present is the tense that surfaces here for posteriority — recognising that this "future in the past" conditional is not the conditional of hypothesis (si-clauses) is often the point where learners get confused, so it helps to keep the two uses of the conditional mentally separate.

Examples

Je sais qu'il viendra demain. — I know he will come tomorrow. (Main verb in the present: no backshift.)

Je savais qu'il était malade. — I knew he was sick. (Simultaneity in the past: présent → imparfait.)

Je savais qu'il était parti la veille. — I knew he had left the day before. (Anteriority: passé composé → plus-que-parfait.)

Je savais qu'il viendrait le lendemain. — I knew he would come the next day. (Posteriority: futur simple → conditionnel présent ("future in the past").)

Je savais qu'il aurait fini avant midi. — I knew he would have finished before noon. (Futur antérieur → conditionnel passé.)

J'étais content qu'il soit venu. — I was glad he had come. (Modern usage keeps subjonctif passé even after a past main verb; no shift to the literary subjonctif plus-que-parfait.)

Common mistakes

Prerequisites

• Present conditional

Related rules

• Reported (indirect) speech
• Present conditional
• Subjunctive triggers