Search results for 'tag:Simple past tag:Tenses' matching tags 'Simple past' and 'Tenses'

Re: ing & verb

CalifJim — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:41:35 GMT

mbouti
1. I am used to working hard(er).

2. I used to work hard(er).

These are two different grammatical patterns with two different meanings.

1. be used to ---ing means be accustomed to -ing.

I am used to working hard talks about your ablity to work hard because you have worked hard so often before. It suggests that you are comfortable in a situation where you are working hard. It suggests that working hard comes easily and naturally to you.

You can use this expression in all the tenses:

I am used to working hard. I was used to working hard. I will be used to working hard. I have been used to working hard. And so on.

For this idiom you must have a form of the verb to be followed by the exact words used to.

________

2. used to --- means regularly or habitually in the past.

I used to work hard talks about a period of time in the past when you had the habit of working hard.

You cannot change the tense of this expression. It is always in the simple past: used to, didn't use to, etc.

________

Examples:

I have drunk wine quite often. I didn't like it at first, but now I do. I have become accustomed to it. Now I am used to drinking wine.

Years ago I was not very good at playing the guitar. I had not had much practice. Playing the guitar had not yet become a natural and comfortable habit for me. I was not used to playing the guitar.

If I practice skiing every day, I think I will be used to skiing by December. That is, I believe that skiing will come naturally to me by then.

___

When Karen was a child she used to live one block from school. It was her habit to walk to school every day. That is, she used to walk to school every day.

You look familiar. Didn't you use to work at IBM? (Wasn't working at IBM something that you did regularly during some period of time in the past?)

I used to walk five miles a day. (There was a period of time in the past when I had the habit of walking five miles every day.) Now I don't walk more than one mile a day.

Mike didn't use to like children until he became a father.

___

<<< Can I say "I am used to work harder & I used to working hard." >>>

No. No. No.

The idiom that contains a form of to be (am, is, are, was, were, ...) must have the ---ing.

The idiom that does not contain a form of to be must not have the ---ing.

Re: What is the suitable tense for the minutes of meeting?

Avangi — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:19:52 GMT

sebayanpendam
By the way, the noun for minutes is spelt with an 's' right?

Yes.

I never got into anything really complicated, but I never found anything where simple past didn't work. "Jack said that . . . "; Joe moved that . . . ."; the motion carried."; "Bill was absent."; etc.

I think it's the nature of the minutes to be reported speech. "The following plan was approved by a voice vote: 1. The president will attend the city council meeting on January 10, etc."

- A.

simple past or the past perfect tense

eagerness — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:52:10 GMT

In the sentence below, please tell me if I should have used a simple past as opposed to using the past perfect tense.

You wouldn't be on his side if you knew what he had done to me?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Re: grammar question?

Avangi — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:49:30 GMT

(1) (Use simple present, "don't.") The album is eternal, so to speak, and critics may continue to make comments in the present, eg., the album does have enjoyable moments.

(2) Use "joined." All the other comments here are in simple past. "Go" doesn't really have a tense here. It's the bare infinitive. They let him [to] go. The sentence is in simple past because of "let."

People sometimes use present tense for a narrative like this but at this stage you should avoid mixing tenses unless you have a good reason to do so.

(3) Yes. It's simple present tense, 3rd person singular: "it guarantees."

(4) It's your choice. The band is singular but the members are plural. When you say "whose band" it leans a little toward singular, "whose band was playing."

(5) while it was still pliable enough to be shaped.

(6) Has is correct. (I would think "influential in the prevailing sound" or "influential in creating the prevailing sound" or "has a guitar player had so great an influence on the prevailing sound" - I don't know - I'm not happy with any of them. Maybe someone else will have an idea.)

Re: difference/ for

Newguest — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:30:21 GMT

Cool Breeze
Newguest

What is the difference in meaning when I say: Do you learn any other languages except English AND Are you learning any other languages except English. Also: can I say "except for English"?

The continuous tense seems better to me (Are you learning/studying...?) You could use the simple tense, simple past this time, in a sentence like "Did you learn any other language in your childhood?" This would imply that you learned the language naturally like a child does in the environment you lived in. It would be possible to express a lot more nuances if there were more inflections in English!

Except for is fine: Did you study any other language except [for] / besides / but / save / than English?

CB

Ok, so I understand that the present simple doesn't sound good.

As for the "for" I assume that "are you learning any other languages except for English" would also be fine?

Thank you

Re: Can we replace WOULD by WAS in such a sentence?

Avangi — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:06:45 GMT

mbouti has a point here. The crazy tenses in the OP excerpt set the present tense as the time when TR was/is six years old watching Lincoln's funeral procession. Therefore, the equivalent should be, "who would one day become his second wife" would be equal to, "who is one day to be/become his second wife."

"Who would one day become" only shows contextually that the "becoming" will take place at some time after the scene with TR as a six-year-old. "Who would one day become" will not change, whether the six-year-old scene is in simple present or simple past. The alternate version, however, must change.  Simple past: was to become   /   simple present: is to become

past:     would be = was to be

present: would be = is to be

Re your original question about the substitution, in my opinion the meaning would not change. The added alteration is not to the context, but to the passive verb form, which makes use of the infinitive. I understand "context" here as the real meaning of the sentence (from another thread).

- A.

Can we replace WOULD by WAS in such a sentence?

Anonymous — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:53:41 GMT

Hello, there,
In the following sentence:

Born in New York City on Oct. 27, 1858, Theodore Roosevelt is the second of four children of Theodore and Martha Bulloch Roosevelt. At age 6, T.R., his brother Elliott and friend Edith Carow (who would one day be his second wife) watch Abraham Lincoln's funeral procession from the home of T.R.'s grandfather on Manhattan's Union Square.

Can we change the modal verb WOULD into the simple past tense WAS? And what's the difference?
I think that WAS is also acceptable if we change a little bit of the context "who was his second wife", but I cannot explain the difference?
Coud you please help me out? Could you please explain the difference between these two verb systems in such a sentence?
Thank you in advance!

Re: find: in present perfect or simple past?

CalifJim — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:58:01 GMT

paul_h
I'd say

Philosophers of the nineteenth century contributed much to our understanding of consciousness.

Yes. You can use either tense. The point was that events distant in the past can be expressed with the present perfect. There's no rule that says present perfect is always recent and simple past is always long ago. But maybe you knew that already, in which case you can ignore my post on the subject.

Re: find: in present perfect or simple past?

CalifJim — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:32:02 GMT

I don't understand why "I have found a book I like" would be wrong -- not as an isolated sentence, at least.

It must have been something else in the context of your phone conversation that caused your friend's reaction.

paul_h
to be correct after a week?

The amount of time that has passed rarely has an influence on the choice between those tenses.

I saw the strangest thing this morning.

Philosophers of the nineteenth century have contributed much to our understanding of consciousness.

Re: Present Perfect Vs. Simple Past

Magic79 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:14:01 GMT

Another question on page 8:
Complete these sentences in any way you like, taking care to choose appropriately between the present perfect and past simple tenses.

d) A: Do you still have your school books from when you were a kid?
B : No, my parents ...

My answer : have thrown them all out.
Book answer: threw them all out.

The question is Why not present perfect just like when you say :
I have lost my books ( you dont have them now). Whereas when you say
I lost my books ( you may have them now as I lost them but then I found them)
I have eaten ( I am full now)
I ate ( I might be hungry now and can eat again).

By the same token, if we say My parents have thrown them all out (means I dont have them now)
The simple past will work but the present perfect will emphasize the fact that I dont have them or that the effect of throwing is still present now in the fact that I dont have them.

What do native speakers think?