Search results for 'tag:Present progressive tag:Regards' matching tags 'Present progressive' and 'Regards'

Re: use of present progressive, contrasting with simple present

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:42:49 GMT

Thank you very much Clive, because only with a native speaker like you I can solve different doubts that correspond to the real use of the language.

I'm a teacher for adolecents and adolecents adults and as I'm not in a geographical english area is more difficult to check the real use of the language.

Thanks and my best regards for you

AnaMarÃa

Re: Present Perfect vs Present Perfect Progressive

CalifJim — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 03:06:12 GMT

1) I see no significant difference between your two sentences whether with live, work, or study. I would not assume anything with regard to English vocabulary and grammar!

2) To start with, I would say ... during the past ten years. The second version (with the progressive tense) mixes two incompatible ideas. has been flying indicates an activity (no specific time limits). over 300,000 miles indicates an accomplishment (with time limits). The phrase during ten years doesn't come into it. The sentence seems wrong even without it.

3) I'm not sure what the question is. ... have been watching ... is progressive (but not present progressive as you claim) because it has an -ing form. ... watched ... is not progressive (although it is past as you claim) because it does not have an -ing form.

CJ

Re: love+ing

goldmund — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:36:36 GMT

Dear Taka,

It is my opinion that Â«itÂ» is a hamburger. Therefore the state of love is finite. It means Â«enjoymentÂ». It will end when the hamburger has been eaten. It is therefore possible to use the present progressive.

It is also my opinion that Â«allÂ» is people. Therefore the state of love is not finite. It does not mean Â«enjoymentÂ». It is therefore not possible to use the present progressive.

It is however possible that a person may speak metaphorically. He may then apply a phrase that is applicable to hamburgers also to people.

Kind regards,

Goldmund

Re: going to future + progressive future. any differnece?

Globetrotter — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:45 GMT

I'm not refering to this I'M about to c0ome thing.
I mean I'm coming. It can be both future and present progressive.
So, does it depend on the situation whats it means?
But what does it mean in the context I gave a couple of posts before?
Again, it's a difference if he is already coming and will arrive in some seconds or if he hasn't even started because he means : I'm going to come.

regards

Re: Past Perfect

just the truth — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:26:51 GMT

Paco:
By the way I have a feeling that English 'now' (in the linguistic sense, not in the physical sense) is not instantaneous, but it seems to occupy some span in the time that flows from the past to the future. Otherwise I cannot understand the usage of the present progressive tense.

JTT: I didn't make any reference to 'now' and the present progressive, Paco. Different 'tense', different usage. The present progressive encompasses a different part of the time spectrum than does a future marker. In order to discuss anything that is going to happen ahead of 'now', no matter how small that time frame is, requires a future marker.

Bringing this discussion back to the issue at hand, Pastel and I would guess, a large number of ESLs are operating under the mistaken notion that, "I would save $20" has a past time meaning and that it can collocate with "if I hadn't bought. We now can see it doesn't and that it can't. We should also be able to see that word choice also has a dramatic effect on what "tense" is chosen.

I believe this aspect is a crucial to helping Jack and other ESLs really grasp these differences. For as long as I've been here, Jack has been confused by these "tense" differences.

Why can't 'save' be used without a modal perfect, but these two are okay,

a) I would have 20 bucks more NOW if I hadn't bought it.

b) I would be ahead 20 bucks NOW if I hadn't bought it.

Because a) and b) have meanings that point to a present state, a present condition while 'save' has a meaning that can only point to that finished time when something was bought.

Let me repeat what the Longman Grammar of Written and Spoken English states as regards the modal verbs in modern English. This is crucial to Jack and Pastel and many other ESLs grasping the meanings of these sentences. They have been misled for much too long.

++++++++++++
"As already noted (6.2.1), English verbs phrases can be marked for either tense or modality, but not both."

" ... we regard modal verbs as unmarked for tense."

Longman Grammar of Written and Spoken English [LGWSE]
++++++++++++++

Here is what is on the back cover of the LGWSE.

"Some aspects of traditional grammar are challenged by this book, and some findings, not even suspected before now, will surprise and interest the reader.

The way language is used in conversation is quite different from the way language is used in fiction, which in turn is very different from the grammatical characteristics of newspapers or academic books."

David Crystal - "For the foreseeable future anyone with a serious interest in English grammar will have to take into account the information this book contains."

Re: Need help for this question on based on Grammatical content...

CalifJim — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 08:34:06 GMT

Technically, there are two tenses: Present (or Non-Past) and Past.
There are four aspects derived from two aspect pairs (simple vs. perfect and simple vs. progressive): Simple, Perfect, Progressive, and Perfect Progressive
[Some authors call the perfect/non-perfect distinction 'phase'.]

Combining these gives eight tense-aspect combinations, sometimes called "tenses".

There are two voices: Active and Passive.

Combining these with the previous set gives 16 tense-aspect-voice combinations, sometimes called "tenses".

When aspect and voice are included in the paradigm of the tenses, the word "tense" is being used with an extended meaning.

Modals are the verbs: will, would, shall, should, can, could, may, might, and must
Each can occur as the initial element in eight aspect-voice combinations described above.

"need" and "dare" are defective modals; they are only used in non-assertive contexts.

"will" and, to a lesser extent, "shall" are used to create the so-called "future tense" or "future of the present", which is more of a "mood" than a tense. "would" and, to a much lesser extent, "should" are used to create the so-called "conditional tense", or "future of the past", also not a tense, strictly speaking. "would" is sometimes regarded as the past of "will".

Other modals are used to express ideas of permission, possibility, obligation, necessity, and so on.

The names of the sixteen "basic tenses" are:
Present, Present Perfect, Present Progressive, Present Perfect Progressive
Past, Past Perfect, Past Progressive, Past Perfect Progressive
Present Passive, Present Perfect Passive, Present Progressive Passive, Present Perfect Progressive Passive
Past Passive, Past Perfect Passive, Past Progressive Passive, Past Perfect Progressive Passive

Different authors may use different names, particularly with regard to the order of the terms within the name. "Simple Past" or "Past Simple" are sometimes used for "Past". "Continuous" is often used instead of "Progressive".

CJ

Future tense

Guest — Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:15:13 GMT

I'm a little confused on the anatomy of the future tense with regard to "going to."

For example:

I am going to see a movie

To me this looks like the present progressive (am going) + an infinitive (to see), but all explanations I find say that "be + going to + verb" is the correct structure. This leads me to believe that 'going' and 'going to' are actually two different verbs. Can anyone clarify this for me?

thanks,
Jack