I still have trouble with this kind of construction s , You cannot have would had . Impossible. The only form of have which can directly follow a modal verb is have , never has, had, or having . These are the correct combinations: can have,

Hi, I have been working on 'Future Functions,' and they were a little tricky. I have answered them all, but I need some help to clear some of these up. There is the possibility that I am using will and shall all wrong. Thanks for the

What is your favourite Grammar Book? I'm pleased you like my explanation! Thank you for that. I don't really have a favourite grammar book - and I haven't read a grammar book for about 30 years anyway. I think for basic elementary

... it probably would not have, had it been ... It is a "third conditional", if you want the technical name. And the underlying if clause if it had been is rephrased with subject-verb inversion as had it been . CJ Thank you. Very

I agree with Planet Hopper on this one. Both choices are valid depending on the context.

Hi, I am a student yet. I have some questions about the English Grammar and Vocabulary . I was studying by the Intermediate Language Practice: English Grammar and Vocabulary by Michael Vince with Paul Emmerson , because I have a test . While

Is this sentence grammatically correct? Не would have lent you the book last week if you could have called for it . No, it's not. YOU ARE WRONG. -- The modal verbs can and may can also be found in conditional sentences. If they occur in

Is there any grammer mistake or ununderstood part of the text below. thanks in advance İstanbul Folk Ensemble was established in 2008. Musical structure of the orchcstrate includes the original compositions that belonged to Turkish

Yet if she could have seen me there, she would have been a little puzzled. What verb form is "could have seen" in this sentence? Personally, I would just call it a "modal perfect" (with could ). I use that term for any modal

That article at that link you posted mentions three ways of dealing with "spoken grammar". The second one is actually the approach I was taking: one single grammar. This is what is said in that article, and what I have been saying