In Present tenses^x, Clauses^x

Actually you can use present tense and past tense in the same sentence, but it is not always the usual pattern. For example, with verbs of reporting, the main clause might be in the past, but if what is reported is still true (or is still believed to be true), you can have the subordinate clause...

Agree with Jim The reason why you can't use are is because thought is in past tense; you cannot use past tense en present tense in the same sentence/clause. Or am I wrong in this? (teachers?)

CJ: I answered this once before. >> JTT: No, Jim, you failed to answer it the first time. As I stated, I was not looking for any kind of reported speech. Jim wrote: However, to be more exact, the prototypical modal for the meaning "it is possible that" is "may". Frequent substitutes...

I answered this once before. The answer is: They were all have it". ("can" would suggest that Marnie gives Joe permission to have the report, which is not the meaning you are focusing on, so I'll leave that one out, even though it's a permissible combination under other circumstances.) ...

CJ: On the contrary, I find your comments completely intelligible, Mr. P. JTT: That's telling! CJ: Are we in some kind of warp, speaking a different language from JT? JTT: No, Jim, you're simply a couple of old prescriptivists who are having a devil of a time shedding long held...

1. 2003 - GWB: The Iraqis are going to hold elections in Iraq in January 2005. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr P: In #1, GWB situates the intention in the present. JTT: No it doesn't Mr P. GWB's speech clearly situates the...

I didn't see the relevance of this example, but I like puzzles (and according to JT I'm terminally confused anyway)! Situation: The boss and some workers want to go over a report but the report is not in the office. One of the team has gone home. Marnie suggests the following. Which ones have...

Sorry, Jack, I made it too confusing. 1. 'I have got' is a special verb: it's a present perfect form with a present meaning. So for the equivalent of the simple past for 'they have got', you have to say 'they had got'. But that leaves no form for the equivalent of the past perfect. Think of it...

Neither "had", "lived", nor "went" are parts of the verb "to be". Therefore it is impossible to say whether they are past indicative forms or past subjunctive forms. Other than forms, we also have what I call "feelings in the head". In that sense of "subjunctive" (i.e., a subjunctive feeling in...

The first is the correct one. These sentences are definitional, so they use present tense. Without "is" to make "associated" a past participal there is no marker of present tense. On the other hand, if you remove the "that", you remove the marker for a relative clause. By doing that you are...