I have very strong opinions on this, since 4th person “we” is the only acceptable point of view to write under ideal communism, and the future perfect progressive outlines both the future (will), past (have been), and present (-ing verb). Think about it. It captures the whole human experience of time at once, and the “we” means that every person is experiencing it, so it’s the most relatable, universal way to write. For example
First person past (Even writing this makes me want to throw up.)
“I went to the beach and played the fiddle atop the wind-blown bluffs”
The correct way now:
“We will have been going to the beach and will have been playing the fiddle atop the wind-torn bluffs”
It gets even better if you add a conditional
“We will have been would we be going to the beach and we will have been would we be playing the fiddle.”
It’s so intimate and intense! It reflects what life is like perfectly!!!
Salut à tous
So I know I can distinguish perfective vs imperfective aspects in the past tense with the passé composé and imparfait (j'ai mangé / I ate vs je mangeais / I was eating).
But is there a grammatical distinction of aspect for the past-in-the-past / plus-que-parfait? How would I for example distinguish I had eaten from I had been eating?
Merci d'avance!
e.g translating the sentence: " it was raining". Is it "estaba lloviendo" or just "llovía"
Personally, I have a really hard time fully understanding the past perfect tense. When writing, I take the time to think when to use it, but when speaking - I just speak naturally so I wouldn't sound like a robot, without trying to make an effort to think whether I should use the past tense or the past perfect tense, I just stick with the past tense. Native speakers, would you mind it in a conversation with somebody like me?
I have someone who helps me write better, but a lot of people on Reddit tell me I have a problem with progressive tense.
When is this supposed to be used?
Is there a trick to remember when to use it? (My friend is laughing at me because I would have written 'to be remembering when to be using it'.)
grammar. : a verb tense that is used to refer to an action or a state that is continuing to happen In English, a verb form in the progressive tense consists of a form of the verb "be" followed by the main verb's present participle.
My friend helps me with grammar, but she can't always help me!
I use the progressive tense in a strange way!
Are there rules to help?
For example, I might say "she can't always be helping me!"
Or I might say "Are there rules to be helping?"
Looking at a common kind of Portuguese tense: progressive tenses.
https://www.portuguesetutoring.com/post/progressive-portuguese-tenses-gerund-or-infinitive
I used to think this way until I was told otherwise. I had asked a question like this:
I've seen on the internet both of these. Isn't the 2. sentence gramatically incorrect as it litteraly means 'I was was eating' ?
[Yo] Comia [Yo] Estaba Comiendo
Don't they mean the same thing as imperfect already equals to continous tense?
Then I was replied that Imperfect Tense was in fact not continous. Also that the second form was correct.
How?
I've also seen usage of 'Preterite Continous'. Is that form correct? Example:
Estuvo comiendo > I was eating.
Thanks.
Btw by progressive tenses I mean like Past Perfect Progressive , Present Progressive, Present perfect progressive
I recently wrote a short remembrance of an incident in my life, and shared it with a writing group. In the piece I used Past Progressive (aka Past Continuous, I’ve learned) in places to describe a struggle I witnessed in a bar between two cops and a suspect. Members of the writing group suggested using simple Past tense in those instances.
Maybe it’s the effect of having taken three intense years of Latin in junior high, but I feel that Past Progressive/Continuous, when used well, evokes an immediacy that Past tense sometimes can’t. But is that true? I understand how meaning can differ significantly between the two forms in a functional sense, as here:
Tom’s friends were laughing when he walked into the room. [versus]
Tom’s friends laughed when he walked into the room.
But can Past P/C do more than that? I read blogposts by two different writers who both seemed to see Past P/C as a trap to avoid and not much more. (That said, I thought neither post was very well written.) I’d appreciate hearing other points of view. Thanks!
Talmanese does not differentiate present and progressive, therefore
Ta mata - I eat
Ta mata - I am eating
I’m a native and as you know it, we don’t always learn the ins and outs of our mother tongue, but we know the ins and outs. It took me years to finally realize that progressive tense is easier to be thought of as an action in progress😂 I never took too much thought to it until now. When English is the norm, you may not even notice these things, especially when surrounded by it 24/7.
Verbs like: playing, eating, jumping rope, sliding, sleeping when used by themselves are just showing that the action is a progressive action and that it is best defined when it is specified that it starts in the past and ends whenever. Examples : No running in the garden; No snoring in the library; Playing field; Waiting Room
If I would have never studied Spanish grammar, there’s no telling when I would have thought about this.
What are some English language realizations you have come to? Was it something that you used everyday? What’s your favorite thing about English?
I've never heard someone say, for instance, "she's keeping smiling" even though I'm sure the sentence is fine, but the construction sounds really odd to me. I wonder if it is actually incorrect?
I'm kind of confused tbh. For example, "He is leaving the country tomorrow".
Example of "knowing" used in a participle clause: • Knowing that his sister liked cute things, he bought her a cute cupcake.
Example of "knowing" not being used in a present progressive tense: • He knew (and not was knowing) his sister liked cute things, so bought her a cute cupcake.
"Know" is a stative verb. What is distinguishing its usage in a participle clause and a progressive tense such that it is possible to be used in its present participle form in the former, but not in the latter?
I know English is very unique partially due to the fact that progressive tense is formalized. Other languages in Europe have the progressive tense, but as an adverbial modification ( it might be adjectival I’m not sure💀). But, I’m curious as to how did English adapt the progressive tense when the surrounding languages did not have it.
On https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/perceive#perceive__5 I found information that word "perceive" is not used in progressive.
Instead of saying: "I am perceiving a slight difference", I should say: "I perceive a slight difference."
But just below is another example: "The human eye is capable of perceiving thousands of insignificant details."
Quick search show other examples where word "perceiving" is used but no explanation to why.
Could someone explain this?
https://imgur.com/a/yugJM0V
I am trying to give a little grammar advice to a writer. Among other things, they keep using sentences formulated like the following. Constantly. I am finding it hard to really articulate why it sounds so bad, other than saying it wouldn't be found in a professionally edited novel.
I would love to hear some thoughts. The best I can think of is that the subject changes awkwardly, but the more 'ELI5', the better.
"He dropped the flashlight down the hole, the light entirely disappearing soon after."
"They shielded their eyes from the sun, some of them being more sensitive to it than others."
Also, to a lesser extent, but also constant:
"Seeing them walk past, he motioned them over." This is correct but it's starting to bug me too since it's every other sentence. Help!
