+0
P/S tell me what are the future perfect continous tense and the past perfect continuous tense.

Also, do you need the "to" in the following sentence? If you do need it, then please tell me why we don't usually see it being included in spoken English?

Give (to ???) me the message.

Send (to????) me the letter.
+0
1-- Next July, I will have been living in Japan for 15 years. I had been living in Los Angeles for several years when I met my future wife.

2-- No to: it is wrong there. It can be used when the sentence is rephrased: Give the message to me.
+0
The semantics of the tenses often depends on which specific verb is involved, but in general, the continuous tenses (where permitted) imply activity over a period of time or the repetition of an act over a period of time. They are generally more descriptive of a situation than the corresponding non-continuous tenses.
The perfect tenses often imply a relevance to the present (present perfect) or a relevance to the past (past perfect) and often imply a time period extending up to the present (present perfect) or up to some time in the past (past perfect).

In Give/Send me the letter there is an implicit to, yes. But it is not included explicitly in the sense of saying it or writing it. It can only be made explicit if the word order changes to place the me after letter: Give/Send the letter to me.

CJ
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Comments  
Thank you.

In regard to No. 1, the two tenses, what would you say are the semantical ramifications of the tenses in practical English usage?

For example, the present perfect tense and past perfect tense are being used because they ?? have some relevance to the present.

How about the present and past perfect continuous tenses? Can you lay out some tangible clues as to how they are related or currently being related to the contextual situations?

In regard to No.2, I can almost swear that I have heard some English professionals saying that there is an implicit word "to" there and whenever you hear the sentences without it, just remember it is to be included for a sentence to be a correct sentence.
 CalifJim's reply was promoted to an answer.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
BelieverIn regard to No.2, I can almost swear that I have heard some English professionals saying that there is an implicit word "to" there and whenever you hear the sentences without it, just remember it is to be included for a sentence to be a correct sentence.
While I recognize that some people will make this claim, I contend that it is counter productive to rely on the implicit existence of the word to.

The indirect object is not native to Indo-European languages. In the simplest scenario of their usage, these nouns had to be marked because word order alone was insufficient to identify the function of such nouns within the clause. With the evolution of English to the use of prepositions, the indirect object marker evolved in two distinct manners. When the direct object follows the verb and the indirect object is last, the earlier usage, the indirect object must be marked with a preposition, and to was selected for this purpose. When the indirect object follows the verb and the direct object is last, the newer usage, word order alone is sufficient to mark the function of the indirect object and no preposition is required.

I consider that it is not useful to get hung up on an arbitrary marker of the indirect object, the preposition to, and to believe that without its presence we must somehow devolve to the recognition that it must be there because it is required under other conditions.
i will have been living in japan since 15 year. (here in this sentence the word ' living ' tells still living ).future perfecti had been living in Los Angeles years since several (past perfect)