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

Re: tense checking

Grammar Geek — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:10:20 GMT

I should have edited the post - they are clearly related, but the first three seemed unrelated to each other.

I broke them into each line so I could comment one by one.

I think the probable date I noted for his visit is one month from the day of writing

You wrote, "If I sleep one more day, I will be meeting my nephew who will be visiting us from the Phillipines." That sounds like he is coming tomorrow to me. How could I guess that it's actually another month away? You wrote that he's coming home "for a month vacation." It sounds like he's coming tomorrow, and staying for one month.

and I think I also have noted that the probable period of completion will last two months.What made you think the writing gives out an idea that I will try to finish the project in one day?

You said that he comes tomorrow, and you are starting today - so naturally that sounds like you'll do one month's worth of work in one day.

You changed the tense of the last sentence to present perfect; (semicolon OK?) but I don't think a past is wrong but a present tense is better because the choice made is current and currently related.

Yes, you made the decision quite recently. The present tense is appropriate. If you used the past, the entire thing should be written in a past tense, not the present.

Where did you want to use the semi-colon?

tense Present vs Past

sophianz — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:40:20 GMT

Hi. Please help me understand the sentence below.

Among the crimes for which Hitler bears direct responsibility was the attempt to exterminate the Jews.

Q1) Is it gramatically correct to use the present tense "bears" for Hitler, who does not exist any more?
I think that the past tense "bore" would be more appropriate.

Q2) If both are gramatically correct, what is the difference in meaning between "bears" and "bore"?

Hope your reply. Thanks.

Re: General Enquiries: Present & Past Perfect tense usage

Mister Micawber — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:05:34 GMT

my grammar text states that past perfect tense can be used to show an action that was completed some time ago. The example given is Joan had gone to England.

Your grammar book is wrong. That is insufficient cause for past perfect:

The earliest well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last 1 billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period). This ended very rapidly as water vapor returned to Earth's atmosphere.

In a sentence when there is Both "never and before", is there a probable chance to use present tense? or a must to use past tense. My examples, I never see her before, i never play before. i never sing before. are they grammatical wrong?

Very wrong. These are fine:

I have never seen her before.
I never saw her before.
I never see her anymore.
I'll never see her anymore.
.

Re: General Enquiries: Present & Past Perfect tense usage

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:37:56 GMT

thanks for the timely reply! you're superb active. thanks!!

i agreed to almost all of your answers!
however, my grammar text states that past perfect tense can be used to show an action that was completed some time ago. The example given is Joan had gone to England.
So i was wondering whether if my book is wrong in the illustration?

Also, as for the last question, i think i'd try to rephrase it. In a sentence when there is Both "never and before", is there a probable chance to use present tense? or a must to use past tense.

My examples, I never see her before, i never play before. i never sing before. are they grammatical wrong?

thank you

Re: there had to be

CalifJim — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:57:38 GMT

pructus
âThere had to beâ .. Is it simple past tense as an indicative or is it a present tense as a subjunctive?

My subjunctive scouts have returned empty-handed.

Consider that a true subjunctive in a main clause is not found in English, certainly not the past subjunctive. It's the simple past indicative tense.

there had to be

pructus — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:55:11 GMT

Following is from âHarry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkabanâ. The situation is that Harry Potter failed in the Quidditch game for the first time.

Harry put his face to his knees, his hands gripping his hair. Fred grabbed his shoulder and shook it roughly.

âCâmon, Harry, youâve never missed the Snitch before.â

âThere had to be one time you didnât get it.â said George.

âThere had to beâ .. Is it simple past tense as an indicative or is it a present tense as a subjunctive?

Re: difference between may and might

CalifJim — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:52:23 GMT

Anonymous
may is present tense.. past tense tense for may is might..

might is usually used in the present tense, though it is also used as the backshift of may in reported speech. It is past in form only.

Re: Present Perfect (americans)

Yankee — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:04:32 GMT

As is the case with British English, whether an American uses the simple present or the present perfect often simply depends on how the speaker is viewing a past activity. That said, when either tense is possible according to the "usual rules", I think there is a noticeable tendency for Americans to choose the simple past tense more often than our British cousins would. There are also a few well-known examples of American usage that probably drive some (but hopefully not all) Brits crazy. For example: "Did you eat yet?" and "I already did that."

The problem with quite a few of your sentences is that there isn't enough context in the sentences themselves (they're very short) and/or not enough broader context with them to say for sure which tense might be more likely in AmE. In a few of your sentences, you haven't really given what I think would be typical wording, so there really isn't much point in trying to say which tense would be used. For example, I can't imagine a doctor asking a patient in his office whether or not the patient had broken his/her arm. And I doubt that the sentences "I've changed my address!" and "I changed my address!" would be used to tell someone I had moved to a new address, so I would need more context there before I could give further input.

It may well be the case (but I don't know this for a fact) that in some cases where a Brit would definitely use the present perfect because there is an effect on the present, we might choose instead to use the simple present tense. If I take your broken arm example, an American might choose to say "I broke my arm last week" (focus on the past event) or "My arm is broken (focus on the current state -- the bone is not yet healed).

Maybe someone else will have some input for you.

Re: which one is correct

Avangi — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:59:20 GMT

poci_wasiats
there were several studis [ had / have ] described that term. waaht are the differences?

There are several studies which have described that term.

There were several studies which had described that term.

Sometimes we use "studies" to describe the research process, and sometimes to describe the report of the reasearch and of the conclusions.

When speaking of the report, we'd use the present tense. There are several studies available on that subject. ('The reports continue to exist.)

Since you use the past tense "there were several studies" the reasearch work has been completed. My choice would be simple past for what they did.

Several studied were made / have been made which described that term. You could also use a participial phrase: Several studies have been made describing that term, but that seems to suggest the studies did nothing else.

In the case of your example, "have described" would mean the same thing as "described." "Had described" may only be used if there's an earlier reference somewhere to a past time:

Before the new technology and the new terminology were developed, several studies were made which had described that term

But it seems unlikely anyone would put it this way. They'd probably say, "several studies had been made which described / had described that term."

- A.

Edit. Sorry to drag this on and on, but after sleeping on it I realize there's no way your second version can be correct. The studies were done in the simple past. So the describing of the term must also have been done in the simple past, and cannot have preceded the studies. Anything which takes place in the past perfect must occur before anything which takes place in the simple past.

Re: death toll

New2grammar — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:15:04 GMT

Clive, I wonder if you're looking at a report on death tolls and you point to a particular figure, would you use the present tense like in the original or the past tense?