Search results for 'tag:Grammar tag:Past tenses' matching tags 'Grammar' and 'Past tenses'

Re: grammar concern

snowfalcon — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:10:48 GMT

Hello,

I am the one who posed the original question (not anonymous now). Mr. Micawber, you chose "He provided service from August 2006 to August 2008". Is this necessarily wrong, "He has provided service since August 2006" ? We are printing the award in July, so, it is not a little awkward to use past tense for a line printed in the present about a term ending in the future? I am browsing through the documentation of this site, http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/tenses.html#present%20perfect.

-A

Re: IN SPEECH

Clive — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:31:08 GMT

Hi,
I was listening to some types of speeches and have some questions.

1.When someone says this, does he have to make it known that it is quoted? Not if he doesn't want to. Such 'rules' are not governed by grammar. A teacher, for example, may insist that a student identify every quotation. I think the written version should be in quotation marks because not being in quotation marks doesn't make sense to me.

Next time is later again.<<< This doesn't make any sense to me. What does it mean?

2.Can we have a present perfect after a dependant clause like "After you heard it" in the past tense? It certainly sounds odd in this example. I can't think of another example in which it sounds OK, although I don't like to say an absolute 'No, never'.

After you heard it, you have decided to come back again. Thank you. Nice to see you all here again.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: could not or can not

CalifJim — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:35:13 GMT

New2grammar
CJ, how about "I could be wrong" and "It could be anything"? There are not a form of past tense, right? It's about possibility.

"a form of the past tense" doesn't make sense to me. There is only one form of the past tense. I think you mean "a past tense form".

Here are the forms of the modals. (Recall that this does not mean that they are used only in these tenses.)

Present: will, shall, can, may, must

Past: would, should, could, might

So will, shall, can, may, and must are all present tense forms; would, should, could, and might are all past tense forms.

But we must make a distinction between form and use. For example, the past tense form should is almost always used with present tense meaning. In fact, all these past tense forms, in one situation or another, can be used with present tense meaning.

So could in "I could be wrong" or "It could be anything" is also a case of a past tense form used with present tense meaning: "It is possible that I am wrong" or "It is possible that it is anything", respectively. In its role in indicating possibility, could can be replaced by may or might, so equivalents are "I may/might be wrong" and "It may/might be anything", respectively.

Re: in Israeli prison

optilang — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:10:56 GMT

New2grammar
A has been sentenced to 10 years and has served 5 of them (so far).

So you're saying that without has it sounds like served is in past tense instead of present perfect reusing the first 'has'. - Yes, for me

New2grammar
I have paid and signed the paper.

I interpret signed here as present perfect tense, borrowing the have before paid.What do you think? - I agree

He has been selected and has played for the team 5 times this year.

He has played and scored for his team.

Maybe it's as a result of the separation by selected in the first sentence, but for me it sounds better with has repeated.

The second sentence, for me, sounds OK as it is.

Sorry, I don't think I'm being much help on this one.

Re: in Israeli prison

New2grammar — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:59:53 GMT

A has been sentenced to 10 years and has served 5 of them (so far).

So you're saying that without has it sounds like served is in past tense instead of present perfect reusing the first 'has'.

New2grammar
I have paid and signed the paper.

I interpret signed here as present perfect tense, borrowing the have before paid.What do you think?

Re: gathered as baseless

Mr Wordy — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:50:06 GMT

New2grammar
Could you help me undesrtand why it doesn't make sense?
thanks.

To me, it does (in this sense), but it's less usual to use the past tense ("have gathered") in this way, so it kind of throws you off course (especially since it's not followed by "that").

Re: lying

RayH — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:00:42 GMT

New2grammar
Mom: You ex-gf called an hour ago. She told me you got her pregnant.

Son: She's lying! (Why is the present tense correct? She called an hour ago)

Thanks.

Even though she said the words in the past she still stands by her claim. So, in a sense, the lie is continuing right up to the present and into the future (until the issue is resolved). After that her claim will be spoken of in the past tense.

Re: Will,Would,Shall,Should

Anonymous — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:09:58 GMT

Hi,

I am a new member here. I like this forum because it helps me to learn grammar. I have a question about these phrases. " If I had more time, I could have traveled the world" or " If I were you, I would buy a house."

when you are saying of writing these phrases, you are in the present tense. why did they use HAD and WERE? isn't that is past tense?

Thank you

When the teacher (had) arrived, they stopped talking.

Viceidol — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:47:12 GMT

Hello, everyone. One of my grammar books says both past perfect and simple past tense mean the same thing in the following example:

When the teacher had arrived, they stopped talking.=When the teacher arrived, they stopped talking.

But my another book says they don't mean the same thing. It gives two examples:

When he closed the door, I began to scream. The book says it means "I screamed before the door was completely closed."

When he had closed the door, I began to scream. The book says it means "I screamed after the door was completely closed."

(Both books are not written by native speakers)

May I ask which opinion of the two books is true? Please help me with this, thank you!

Using past tense to refer to the future

Viceidol — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:01:32 GMT

Hello, everyone. I saw a sentence in my grammar book:

It will be a great thing for future generations to know that I laid down my life here (I think it means "die in the battlefield") for the country.

What confuses me is: the main clause uses future tense, but in the "that-clause", "I laid down my life here" is a past tense. Since he is not dead while he speaks, why can it use past tense here?

Although the book says "we can use past tense to refer to something that may happen in the future", I've never seen this kind of grammar before. Could you tell me if that Is ture? Thank you for your help!