1 2 3 4  6 7 8 10
[url=http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/esl/esltensverb.html ]HERE'S 18[/url] that you could print out from right on line.
As far as I know that there are only 24 tenses in English, but now that (CJ) you have brought up the "if we add combinations with the modals (will, would, can, could....), the number of tenses increases considerably!" I believe that way too.... as each modal if used with the 4 aspects and 2 voices, it extends the tenses to up to 32 altogether!

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
sitifanPerfect progressive aspect is normally not expressed in the passive voice.
Well, you would know what is normal in English, I suppose!

FYI. Actual utterance of a native speaker:

The economy is getting worse and worse. More and more employees have been being laid off every month.

I would say that the passive perfect progressive is less commonly used than some of the other tenses, not that it's not normal. There is probably a frequency count available for all the tenses, and we could say of almost any tense that it is more likely or less likely to be used than any other given tense we might choose. The fact that there are differences in frequency of use really doesn't make the passive perfect progressive any less a tense than the others.

as far as i know through my studying

there are 3 tenses ;



Sadeemthere are 3 tenses ;



That is a simplified version of the tense system of English, regarded by many teachers as good enough for all practical purposes. It may be all you need to learn to master English if you're not interested in the subtleties of linguists. Emotion: smile

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
and that's what i need Emotion: smile you know it's a forgin language here in Saudi Arabia Emotion: smile

take care !!
It depends on how you want to define "tense", at what level you want to explain things and the model you are using to explain things . At one level there are clearly only two: the present and the past. After that, as others have said, you can consider other things, call them tenses, and multiply the number.

It must be said though that the idea that English has a "future tense" is a bit hard to defend under any but the most basic model.

English has many ways of talking about the future, but no real "future tense".
In further support of CalifJim, coming from another angle, in terms of a stricter linguistic definition, I can provide the following verbatim from
Newby, Michael. The Structure of English. Cambridge University Press, 2003 (paperback...ISBN 0-521-34996-6), p. 46:

[Begin excerpt ....the word(s) in all uppercase are my own, for emphasis]
...Tense, then, is a matter of INFLECTION, the changing of the shape of a verb by adding (or not adding a morpheme). You can see from this that there are ONLY TWO TENSES in English: present and past. Other languages may have more. French, for example, also has a future tense: a way of inflecting the verb (changing its shape) to express future time. English manages these things differently (see below).

We can also add other words to the lexical verb (always to the front of it). These are called auxiliary verbs and, TOGETHER WITH THE TENSE FORM, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EXPRESSING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE TIME RELATION IN THE VERB PHRASE.

[End excerpt]

Furthermore, in another linguistic based text,
Curzan, Anne and Adams, Michael. How English Works: A Linguistic Introduction. Pearson Education Inc., 2006 (paperback ISBN 0-321-12188-0), pp. 137-145,

the authors have a Table 5.2 that describes the Morphological Forms of Verbs. The "bare infinitive form (regular = zero ending) functions for:
All present tense forms except the third-person singular I/we/they nap

Base for infinitive form with the "to" (them marked infinitive) to nap

Form after modal auxiliaries and auxiliary "do" we must nap; do we nap? I do nap.

Imperative form nap!

Present subjunctive form I recommend that seh nap

Complements of perception and causative verbs we watched her nap

The "third-person singular present tense form (regular = -s ending)" functions for
Third -person singular present tense form he/she/it/one naps

The "Past tense form (regular = -ed ending; irregular = internal vowel change)" functions for
All past forms I/we/you/she/they napped ; I/we/you/she/they sang

The "Present participle (regular=-ing ending)" functions for:
Form for progressive constructions we are/were/have been napping

The "Past participle (regular=-ed ending; irregular=-en ending or internal vowel change)" functions for:
Form for 'perfect' constructions (with form of 'have' as auxiliary) we have/had napped; we have/had forgotten; we have/had sung; the sentence is/was mangled

Form for 'passive' constructions (with form of 'be' as auxiliary) all verbs are/were forgotten;
the song is/was sung

So the authors do NOT mention a future "tense". Furthermore they go on to describe 'progressive' and 'perfect" CONSTUCTIONS as ASPECTS. So there are two tenses ( present/past), two aspects
(perfect/progressive). And then there are a host of modal auxilaries plus auxiliary "do" that go on to create the FORMS that describe the time relation in the verb phrase.

They go on to say that all English verbs CONJUGATE (or change form) to indictate three grammatical categories: tense, aspect, and mood/modality (I have not discussed mood/modality here, but it is basically like indicative, interrogative, imperative, conditional, etc). So a conjugation indicates CATEGORIES of which tense, aspect, and mood/modality have some relationship to TIME. But there are only two "tenses" in the technical sense (in ENGLISH). Other languages like Russian definitely have three tenses (present, past, and future) that have inflections that marked them as such.

So now, I will say, it is an oversimplification to describe all of these combinations as "tenses", BUT for a simplified way of grouping them under a descriptor of how verb phrases describe time relation, teachers/grammarians may refer to each of them as a "tense". But except for "present" and "past" tense, which are true tenses in the linguistic sense (inflection), the others are really "forms" or "constructs".

So with the help of those two books and my own comments, perhaps that can clarify something in this discussion that supports CalifJim (, et al) and provides a slightly different perspective.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Interesting.There can be no such thing as the PRESENT at all,because it is never static.The so called PRESENT is constantly changing into the FUTURE and THE PAST at the same "SPLIT TIME ". Time is an apparent constant CONTINUUM. There is the definite PAST and the definite future, but teh interfac eof PAT and FUTURE is constantly changing at an undefinable rate. It makes us think again about teh question. What exactly is TIME ? We are immersed in it,but what is it ? Nobody knows. we are victims of Time,and cannot free ouselves from it on thi searth. The various perceptions of Time progress i sprobably a different matter.
Show more