0
Blueclown Posted 21 years ago
Grammar
how complicated the tense is
i'm doing grammar exercises about tense . There are lots of exercises I don't understand why their keys are that not this . Here are some:
1. Brenda (left/had left) before I had time to talk to her . Key: left
2. It was much later I found out that during all the time I had been writing to my penfriend , my mother had been opening and reading the replies! ( why is HAD BEEN OPENING)
3. I'm having problems with David . He (has called/ has been calling ) me up in the middle of the night and (told/telling)me his troubles. key: has been calling , telling
4.I( have read/ have been reading ) War and Peace this morning . Key; have been reading
there are some more . please explain them to me
1. Brenda (left/had left) before I had time to talk to her . Key: left
2. It was much later I found out that during all the time I had been writing to my penfriend , my mother had been opening and reading the replies! ( why is HAD BEEN OPENING)
3. I'm having problems with David . He (has called/ has been calling ) me up in the middle of the night and (told/telling)me his troubles. key: has been calling , telling
4.I( have read/ have been reading ) War and Peace this morning . Key; have been reading
there are some more . please explain them to me
Top answer
Hi, 1. Brenda (left/had left) before I had time to talk to her . Key: left Either is OK.
- Hi, 1.
- Brenda (left/had left) before I had time to talk to her .
- Key: left Either is OK.
- You don't really need 'had left' because 'before' makes it clear that the first thing was that she left.
- 2.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
10 Answers
0
Hi,
1. Brenda (left/had left) before I had time to talk to her . Key: left Either is OK. You don't really need 'had left' because 'before' makes it clear that the first thing was that she left.
2. It was much later I found out that during all the time I had been writing to my penfriend , my mother had been opening and reading the
1. Brenda (left/had left) before I had time to talk to her . Key: left Either is OK. You don't really need 'had left' because 'before' makes it clear that the first thing was that she left.
2. It was much later I found out that during all the time I had been writing to my penfriend , my mother had been opening and reading the
00
Hello
Clive is right. But I would like to add a tip as to the question #1. That is, some grammar books are insisting we don't have to make a tense shift in the case 'before' or 'after' leads the time adverbial clause. It is because the time sequence is easily understandable without tense shifts.
paco
Clive is right. But I would like to add a tip as to the question #1. That is, some grammar books are insisting we don't have to make a tense shift in the case 'before' or 'after' leads the time adverbial clause. It is because the time sequence is easily understandable without tense shifts.
paco
00
I have written a poem in which I have used questionable grammar. In a poem, in order to make rhythm or rhyme, is it ok to flip words around? Ex: All I had left. (I'm pretty sure this is how it should be written, but in the next I say it differently because I needed "had" to be the last word in the line in order to rhyme with the line that came afterward) All I left had. Is it grammatically correc
00
Hi,
Some people would say that in poetry, the normal grammar 'rules' don't apply, you can have complete freedom as long as your meaning can be found by the reader.
If you want to follow some grammar rules in general, you can definitely have more freedom than in non-poetry. For example, you can easily flip subject and verb around. eg I love you. Love you do I.
However, '
Some people would say that in poetry, the normal grammar 'rules' don't apply, you can have complete freedom as long as your meaning can be found by the reader.
If you want to follow some grammar rules in general, you can definitely have more freedom than in non-poetry. For example, you can easily flip subject and verb around. eg I love you. Love you do I.
However, '
00
It sounds odd to me, too; though without seeing the poem, it's difficult to say.
Inversion for the sake of rhyme does tend to vex the reader.
MrP
Inversion for the sake of rhyme does tend to vex the reader.
MrP
00
2. The writing and the opening happened before the finding out. So 'had been writing' and 'had been opening' are used with 'found out' to show this difference in time.
4. 'this morning' specifies the time at which the reading of War and Peace took place. Specifying the time with a phrase like 'this morning' is incompatible with the present perfect 'have read'. 'I have read War and
4. 'this morning' specifies the time at which the reading of War and Peace took place. Specifying the time with a phrase like 'this morning' is incompatible with the present perfect 'have read'. 'I have read War and
00
Calif Jim wrote:
4. 'this morning' specifies the time at which the reading of War and Peace took place. Specifying the time with a phrase like 'this morning' is incompatible with the present perfect 'have read'. 'I have read War and Peace' would be fine (without 'this morning').
Likewise, you can't correctly say "I have read it yesterday" or "I have rea
4. 'this morning' specifies the time at which the reading of War and Peace took place. Specifying the time with a phrase like 'this morning' is incompatible with the present perfect 'have read'. 'I have read War and Peace' would be fine (without 'this morning').
Likewise, you can't correctly say "I have read it yesterday" or "I have rea
00
It seems I will have to retract those comments about 'this morning'. Mentally, I was thinking the phrase was uttered later than the morning, although there's nothing in the sentence that specifically says so. Consequently, "have read" could be correct or incorrect, depending when the sentence was uttered.
CJ
CJ
00
If you use "have read," you imply that you just completed the reading and are likely to read it again. The present perfect progressive tense indicates, to me, that the reading began in the past, continues to progress in the present, and is likely to continue in the future. Isn't that the present perfect progressive tense? Isn't this fun.
00
1. Brenda left. That's a simple past tense. If anything happened BEFORE that time, you would then use the past perfect. No need for it here.
2. You FOUND out. That already implies the past. Any action taking place BEFORE the time you found out will make use of the past perfect. In this case the past perfect progressive tenses are correctly used. The progressive indicates the action was in
2. You FOUND out. That already implies the past. Any action taking place BEFORE the time you found out will make use of the past perfect. In this case the past perfect progressive tenses are correctly used. The progressive indicates the action was in
0
Related Questions