"struck" is past tense, so you need the past tense of "enter" Reality struck while opportunity entered . Or use the present tense of "struck" Reality strikes while opportunity enters.

Could you explain when exactly we can reduce relative clause if there is no be verb? I know I can say: English has an alphabet that consists or consisting of 26 letters. You are mixing a gerund phrase in with a subordinate noun clause.

Hi, Your tenses are fine. However, your sentence is incorrect because it lacks capital letters. Clive

I'm guessing it has something to do with the result thing I wouldn't take 'the result thing' too seriously in this case. In fact, if I were you, I would put that out of my mind completely. The baker could just as easily have

Please read the paragraph below: He saw a man baking delicious cakes. "What a nice smell," the man said. Eating his bread, he breathed in the smell for some time. When he rose to continue his journey, the baker suddenly ran across

1. There is no objection to the use of time words with the past perfect tense. The objection is when these words are used with the present perfect tense. You may, however, if you wish, replace "last week" with "the previous

The book is lying on the table.-present tense The book was laying on the table- past tense Non-finite forms (like the -ing form) do not change tense. The change from is to was makes the change in tense. is lying was lying CJ

The book is lying on the table.-present tense The book was laying on the table- past tense

One extra point I want to make which is when you add the adverb "regularly" to the sentence, it will skew the meaning which was intended. Consider this: A- I sent you an email earlier, did you get it? B- I am checking my

I am cheking my e-mail. This says: I am at this minute logging in to check if my boss has sent me any email I heve been checking my e-mail The present perfect signifies that the act of checking has started from a point in time