The sequence of tenses — concordance des temps — is what makes a French sentence sound coherent across clauses. When you embed one clause inside another, the tenses have to line up so that the temporal relationship between the two events is clear. If the main clause shifts from the present to the past, the subordinate clause shifts too: not because the meaning changed, but because French grammar requires the temporal frame to stay consistent.
This is something English does informally — "he says he is tired" vs. "he said he was tired" — but English speakers often don't realize they are following a rule. French codifies the rule, applies it more rigidly, and adds a few twists English does not have. This page explains the shifts, drills the patterns, and flags when modern French allows you to relax the rule.
The basic principle
When the main verb is in a past tense (passé composé, imparfait, plus-que-parfait, passé simple), the subordinate clause's tense is calibrated relative to that past anchor point, not relative to now. There are three possible relationships:
Same-time action (the subordinate event happens at the same time as the main event) → imparfait in the subordinate clause.
Anterior action (the subordinate event happened before the main event) → plus-que-parfait in the subordinate clause.
Posterior action (the subordinate event will happen after the main event) → conditionnel présent in the subordinate clause.
The same three relationships exist when the main verb is in the present, but the subordinate tenses are different:
| Relationship | Main present | Main past |
|---|---|---|
| Same time | Présent | Imparfait |
| Anterior | Passé composé | Plus-que-parfait |
| Posterior | Futur simple | Conditionnel présent |
The two columns are mirror images. Each tense in the present-anchor column has a corresponding tense in the past-anchor column. Once you know which row you need, the column tells you which form to use.
The same-time shift: present → imparfait
When you report a contemporaneous fact in the past, the present tense in the embedded clause shifts to the imparfait.
Il dit qu'il est malade.
He says he is sick. (main present, embedded present)
Il a dit qu'il était malade.
He said he was sick. (main past, embedded imparfait — same-time relationship)
The imparfait does not mean "he was sick yesterday and is now well." It means his being sick was contemporaneous with his speaking — at the moment of his statement, he was sick. Whether he is still sick now is unknown from the sentence; you would need extra context.
Marie m'a expliqué qu'elle travaillait sur un nouveau projet.
Marie explained to me that she was working on a new project. (her working was simultaneous with her explaining)
On nous a annoncé que le train avait du retard.
They told us that the train was delayed.
Je pensais qu'il pleuvait dehors.
I thought it was raining outside. (the rain and the thinking were simultaneous in the past)
Elle savait que je l'aimais.
She knew I loved her.
The anterior shift: passé composé → plus-que-parfait
When the embedded action took place before the main past action, the embedded clause uses the plus-que-parfait.
Il dit qu'il a fini son travail.
He says he has finished his work. (main present, embedded passé composé)
Il a dit qu'il avait fini son travail.
He said he had finished his work. (main past, embedded plus-que-parfait — anterior relationship)
The plus-que-parfait signals that finishing happened before saying. This is exactly the English past perfect ("had finished"), which appears for the same reason.
On m'a raconté que tu avais quitté ton emploi.
They told me you had quit your job.
J'ai compris qu'elle était déjà partie.
I understood she had already left.
Il pensait qu'on s'était trompé d'adresse.
He thought we had gotten the wrong address.
Elle a expliqué qu'elle avait étudié à Lyon avant de venir à Paris.
She explained that she had studied in Lyon before coming to Paris.
The posterior shift: futur simple → conditionnel présent
When the embedded action is future relative to the main past action, the embedded clause uses the conditionnel présent. This is one of the most surprising shifts for English speakers, because English uses would for the same purpose, and would in this context is exactly the conditional form.
Il dit qu'il viendra demain.
He says he will come tomorrow. (main present, embedded futur simple)
Il a dit qu'il viendrait demain.
He said he would come tomorrow. (main past, embedded conditionnel — posterior relationship)
In the second sentence, demain is "tomorrow relative to when he spoke," not "tomorrow relative to now." His coming is in the future of his speaking, even though his speaking is in the past of the present moment.
Tu m'as promis que tu m'aiderais.
You promised me you would help me.
Je savais qu'on aurait besoin d'une voiture.
I knew we would need a car.
Elle pensait que ce serait facile.
She thought it would be easy.
On nous a prévenus qu'il y aurait des perturbations sur la ligne.
They warned us there would be disruptions on the line.
The conditionnel présent in this context is not expressing a hypothetical — it is encoding posteriority from a past anchor. This use of the conditional is sometimes called the futur dans le passé ("future in the past").
A complete contrast: same sentence, three relationships
To see all three shifts in action, take one base situation and vary the temporal relationship:
Il a dit qu'il était malade.
He said he was sick. (sick when he said it — same time)
Il a dit qu'il avait été malade.
He said he had been sick. (sick before he said it — anterior)
Il a dit qu'il serait malade.
He said he would be sick. (sick after he said it — posterior)
The main clause is identical (il a dit); only the subordinate tense changes, and that change carries the entire temporal relationship.
Indirect speech: where these rules become indispensable
The sequence of tenses matters most in indirect speech — when you report what someone said. Direct speech uses the original tenses; indirect speech shifts them.
Direct: Il dit : « Je suis malade. »
Direct: He says, 'I am sick.'
Indirect (present): Il dit qu'il est malade.
Indirect (present): He says he is sick.
Indirect (past): Il a dit qu'il était malade.
Indirect (past): He said he was sick.
Same operation with future and past:
Direct: Il dit : « Je viendrai demain. »
Direct: He says, 'I will come tomorrow.'
Indirect (past): Il a dit qu'il viendrait le lendemain.
Indirect (past): He said he would come the next day.
Direct: Elle dit : « J'ai vu ce film. »
Direct: She says, 'I saw that film.'
Indirect (past): Elle a dit qu'elle avait vu ce film.
Indirect (past): She said she had seen that film.
Time word shifts in indirect speech
When you shift the main verb to the past, certain time words also shift to maintain the right reference frame. Words like aujourd'hui (today) and demain (tomorrow) anchor on the present moment; in past indirect speech, they need to anchor on the past speaking moment.
| Direct (present-anchored) | Indirect past (past-anchored) | English |
|---|---|---|
| aujourd'hui | ce jour-là | today → that day |
| hier | la veille | yesterday → the day before |
| avant-hier | l'avant-veille | the day before yesterday → two days before |
| demain | le lendemain | tomorrow → the next day |
| après-demain | le surlendemain | day after tomorrow → two days later |
| maintenant | à ce moment-là | now → at that moment |
| cette semaine | cette semaine-là | this week → that week |
| l'année prochaine | l'année suivante | next year → the following year |
| la semaine dernière | la semaine précédente / d'avant | last week → the week before |
| il y a deux jours | deux jours plus tôt / auparavant | two days ago → two days earlier |
Direct: Elle dit : « Je pars demain. »
Direct: She says, 'I'm leaving tomorrow.'
Indirect: Elle a dit qu'elle partait le lendemain.
Indirect: She said she was leaving the next day.
Direct: Il a annoncé : « Hier, j'ai signé le contrat. »
Direct: He announced, 'Yesterday I signed the contract.'
Indirect: Il a annoncé que la veille, il avait signé le contrat.
Indirect: He announced that the day before, he had signed the contract.
The relaxed rule: when the embedded fact is still true
Here is the modern wrinkle: when the embedded statement is still true at the time of speaking, French allows you to skip the sequence-of-tenses shift. This is increasingly common in spoken French and is not considered an error.
Strict: Il a dit qu'il était malade.
Strict: He said he was sick. (sequence of tenses applied)
Relaxed: Il a dit qu'il est malade.
Relaxed: He said he is sick. (sequence relaxed because he is still sick now)
The strict version is always grammatical and always correct. The relaxed version is grammatical when, and only when, the embedded fact is still true at the present moment.
Il m'a dit que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil.
He told me that the Earth revolves around the Sun. (universal truth — no shift needed)
On m'a expliqué que Paris est la capitale de la France.
They explained to me that Paris is the capital of France. (still true — no shift)
Hier, mon collègue m'a dit qu'il habite à Bordeaux.
Yesterday my colleague told me that he lives in Bordeaux. (still true — relaxed sequence)
This relaxation is rare in formal writing but normal in conversation. When in doubt, apply the strict shift — it is never wrong.
Conjunctions that introduce subordinate clauses
The sequence of tenses applies in any subordinate clause, but the most common ones use:
- que — that (after verbs of speaking, thinking, knowing)
- parce que — because
- quand, lorsque — when
- si — if (whether, in indirect questions)
- comme, puisque — as, since (causal)
Je pensais que tu travaillais ce jour-là.
I thought you were working that day.
Elle est partie parce qu'elle avait un rendez-vous.
She left because she had an appointment.
Quand j'étais petit, on habitait à la campagne.
When I was little, we lived in the countryside.
Il m'a demandé si j'avais le temps.
He asked me if I had time. (indirect question — sequence applies)
A note on si: when si introduces a hypothetical conditional ("if it were so"), the rules are different — si + imparfait, conditional is a fixed pattern. When si introduces an indirect question (if/whether), the sequence of tenses applies normally.
Comparison with English
English does the same shift but more loosely than French:
- He says he is tired → He said he was tired (same-time shift, present → past)
- He says he has finished → He said he had finished (anterior shift, present perfect → past perfect)
- He says he will come → He said he would come (posterior shift, will → would)
So far the systems align. The main differences:
- The relaxed rule. Both English and French allow skipping the shift when the embedded fact is still true (He said he is sick), but French is more conservative about this in writing.
- Time word shifts. English does shift time words too (today → that day, tomorrow → the next day), but the shift is sometimes less rigid than in French. The full repertoire of French time-word shifts (aujourd'hui → ce jour-là, hier → la veille, demain → le lendemain) is more extensive than the English habit.
- The conditional as future-in-the-past. English uses would for both hypotheticals and posterior past — French does the same with conditionnel présent. This match makes the rule easier for English speakers to internalize.
Common Mistakes
Mistake 1: Failing to shift the present to imparfait in indirect speech.
❌ Il a dit qu'il est fatigué.
In strict grammar, this is wrong unless he is still tired now. The default should be imparfait.
✅ Il a dit qu'il était fatigué.
He said he was tired. (strict sequence)
Mistake 2: Using the futur simple instead of conditionnel for posterior past action.
❌ Il a dit qu'il viendra demain.
Incorrect — main past requires conditionnel for posterior, not futur simple.
✅ Il a dit qu'il viendrait demain.
He said he would come tomorrow.
Mistake 3: Using passé composé instead of plus-que-parfait for anterior action.
❌ J'ai compris qu'elle est déjà partie.
Incorrect — her leaving happened before your understanding, so plus-que-parfait.
✅ J'ai compris qu'elle était déjà partie.
I understood she had already left.
Mistake 4: Forgetting to shift time words.
❌ Il a dit qu'il viendrait demain (referring to a past 'tomorrow').
Risky — if you mean 'the day after he spoke,' use le lendemain. Demain anchors on the present and would mean 'tomorrow from now.'
✅ Il a dit qu'il viendrait le lendemain.
He said he would come the next day.
Mistake 5: Applying the sequence to a hypothetical si-clause.
❌ Si j'avais eu su, je serais venu plus tôt. (intended as past hypothetical)
The 'avais eu' is malformed. The hypothetical pattern is si + plus-que-parfait, conditionnel passé — without sequence-of-tenses interaction.
✅ Si j'avais su, je serais venu plus tôt.
If I had known, I would have come earlier.
Mistake 6: Applying the strict shift when the embedded fact is universal.
❌ Le professeur nous a appris que la Terre tournait autour du Soleil.
Possible but odd — for universal truths, the relaxed sequence is more natural in modern French.
✅ Le professeur nous a appris que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil.
The teacher taught us that the Earth revolves around the Sun. (universal truth — present preferred)
Key takeaways
The sequence of tenses is the rule that makes embedded clauses behave consistently when the main verb is in the past. Three shifts:
- Same time in the past → imparfait in the subordinate.
- Anterior in the past → plus-que-parfait in the subordinate.
- Posterior in the past → conditionnel présent in the subordinate.
These shifts are accompanied by time-word shifts (aujourd'hui → ce jour-là, demain → le lendemain) and apply most visibly in indirect speech. Modern French allows skipping the same-time shift when the embedded fact is still true (the relaxed sequence), but the strict shift is always correct and should be your default in writing.
Once internalized, the system runs automatically: you choose your main verb, you ask "same time, before, or after?" and the subordinate tense follows from that choice. This is one of those grammar rules that, after enough exposure, becomes invisible — you stop thinking about it because your sense of temporal coherence does the work.
Now practice French
Reading grammar gets you part of the way. The exercises are where it sticks — free, no signup needed.
Start learning French→Related Topics
- French Past-Tense Narrative System: OverviewB1 — French has five past tenses for narration — passé composé, imparfait, plus-que-parfait, passé simple, and passé antérieur — split between modern (spoken/casual) and literary registers, each with a clear narrative role.
- Passé Composé vs Imparfait: The Core DistinctionA2 — The single most important past-tense decision in French — passé composé for completed events and imparfait for description, ongoing states, and habits. Learn the rules, the time markers, and the contrasts that organize every French past-tense narrative.
- L'imparfait : vue d'ensembleA2 — The imparfait — French's past-imperfective tense. Five core uses (habit, description, ongoing action, politeness, hypothetical), one almost-universal formation (1pl present minus -ons plus -ais/-ais/-ait/-ions/-iez/-aient), and the single irregular stem (être → ét-).
- Le Plus-que-parfait: OverviewB1 — The plus-que-parfait is the workhorse French past-anterior tense — for an action completed before another past action. It maps almost perfectly onto English 'had + past participle' (I had eaten, I had gone) and is essential for reported speech, sequential past, hypothetical regret, and si-clauses about past.
- Le Conditionnel: Overview of the French Conditional MoodA2 — The conditionnel is more than 'would' — it's the polite voice, the hypothetical voice, the future-in-the-past, and the journalistic hedge. One paradigm, six everyday jobs, and a place at the heart of grown-up French.
- Le Discours Indirect: structuresB1 — How to convert direct speech into indirect speech in French — the tense shifts, time-marker substitutions, and special structures for reported questions and commands.