By Simple past, Clauses

the subordinating clause is (was?) accordingly simple past present or past continuous present... what is this supposed to mean? hehe I mean, I 've been told before that if the main clause is past tense, the subordinating clause is accordingly simple past present or past continuous present....

It would be easier if you thought about what you have written before you post it, and be sure that you have expressed yourself as clearly as possible. This is not a chat room. the subordinating clause is (was?) accordingly simple past present or past continuous present -- what is this supposed...

'Can't', I feel, would be far the commoner expression in both written and spoken English Sorry, Mr. Micawber. I don't get this one. You mean 'would be the common expression', or what? Anyway, I think the situation that the tense in the subordinating clause holds at the present is very common...

Dear teachers, Is it true that we cannot use SINCE with the simple past except in clauses like: It has been 2 months SINCE = clause but could we also say: "It has been 2 months SINCE she HAS ARRIVED in NY." ?? FOR, on the other hand, can be used with perfect and simple tenses, isn't that...

Two days after I go to the bank with my phone number". Unfortunately you has to use 'later' (or 'pass') instead. There is a strange rule in English that if 'after' is used to mentioned a time in the past (measuring from now), it is permitted to use. (PS: Hopefully this stern rule will be removed...

There is more than one difference between the simple past and the present perfect. The simplest difference is the grammatical difference that the simple past can be used with expressions which signify a definite, particular time in the past. I wrote a letter yesterday. I wrote a letter at 7...

It's simple past: "...I knew..." The other verbs and verb-appearing words in the sentence are ancillary. "Living" in the first clause is an adjective modifying forest, "it was going to be" is a verb clause in the simple past ("it was..."), and "guided" is also in the simple past.

If I weren't interested in football I wouldn't have minded watching the film on Channel Two yesterday evening. The "Type 1 Conditional" form is: If I am not interested in football, I won't mind watching the film on Channel Two yesterday evening. (Note that the future "won't" and the past...

In former times, questions were built by a so called 'inversion', that means Subject and Verb of the actual sentence changed positions: Examples: You like tea. -----> Question: Like you tea? He likes tea. -----> Question: Likes he tea? This was possible as word order did not loom very large,...

I've posted this in another thread: would + base form of verb = simple conditional (would go) would + have + past participle = perfect conditional (would have gone) Both are usually seen in conditional sentences Types II and III. Type II: "If it started to rain now, I would stay at home." Type...