0
Redkiddy Posted 20 years ago
Grammar
past tense?
Hi from Istanbul,
Look at this question:
"I ..............there a long time watching the ship going further and further.
a) stand b) am standing c) have been standing d) stood e) was standing
I gave the answer "e" firstly,,,but The answer is "d" ,,,,and I thought it is ok, too.
But how can I eliminate "e".what is the grammar explanation to eliminate "e".
Look at this question:
"I ..............there a long time watching the ship going further and further.
a) stand b) am standing c) have been standing d) stood e) was standing
I gave the answer "e" firstly,,,but The answer is "d" ,,,,and I thought it is ok, too.
But how can I eliminate "e".what is the grammar explanation to eliminate "e".
Top answer
I'd say "was" is as correct as "stood". e. neither sitting nor lying etc.
- I'd say "was" is as correct as "stood".
- e.
- neither sitting nor lying etc.
- while "be" (past tense "was") only considers the fact that you were attendant.
- All the best -Pemmican
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
8 Answers
0
I'd say "was" is as correct as "stood".
It has to be a past tense form (both "was" and "stood" are past tense forms) - and both of them fit in this context:
The only difference is a semantic one:
"stand" (past tense: "stood") means that you were there "standing", i.e. neither sitting nor lying etc. while
"be" (past tense "was") only considers the fact that you
It has to be a past tense form (both "was" and "stood" are past tense forms) - and both of them fit in this context:
The only difference is a semantic one:
"stand" (past tense: "stood") means that you were there "standing", i.e. neither sitting nor lying etc. while
"be" (past tense "was") only considers the fact that you
00
The adverbial phrase "(for) a long time" just doesn't seem to go with the past continuous/progressive tense.
I can't imagine why I think that.
In fact, I think any adverbial phrase that specifies a period of time seems odd (just a little) with the past progressive.
The second of each of the following pairs seems better to me:
The children were sleeping for four h
I can't imagine why I think that.
In fact, I think any adverbial phrase that specifies a period of time seems odd (just a little) with the past progressive.
The second of each of the following pairs seems better to me:
The children were sleeping for four h
00
CalifJimI was sitting in the study when suddenly a meteorite crashed through the ceiling.It's true!
00
Do I really come across in the Forum as being THAT old?
And having so FEW grammar books?
And having so FEW grammar books?
00
Great! (Though I must say I didn't quite see you like that, Calif... 
)
)00
0
0 > The second of each of the following pairs seems better to me: 02 br
00 > 02 br
00 > The children were sleeping for four hours. The children slept for four hours. 02 br
00 > It was raining for three hours. It rained for three hours. 02 br
00 > I was sitting in the study all day. I sat in the study all day. 02 br
00 > In fact, I
00 > 02 br
00 > The children were sleeping for four hours. The children slept for four hours. 02 br
00 > It was raining for three hours. It rained for three hours. 02 br
00 > I was sitting in the study all day. I sat in the study all day. 02 br
00 > In fact, I
00
because it would have to be: 'I was standing there a long time watching the ship go further and further', so that they are both in past tense
(Y)
(Y)
0
Related Questions