When she had entered the room, she found him laid on the floor with the box in his right hand. She had entered the room and found him laid on the floor with the box in his right hand. She entered the room and found him laid on the floor with the box in his right hand.   In the first sentence I used the past perfect and the simple past; in the third sentence I only used the simple past with help of "and".   My question is: is it possible to use the present perfect and the simple past or is it necessary to use the two simple past verbs joined with an "and" as I did in the third sentence? In short: is my second sentence right or is it wrong?
17149
I have never had this problem before. But after seeing some questions posted on ELU, I started to doubt. I have been through links1, pages of grammar books2, a lot of questions3 posted here and ELU. I now still can't seem to understand how the past perfect is exactly used. The references sometimes even contradict each other.  What I had understood so far was      The past perfect is not necessary if we are not 'going back' to the earlier past, and simply moving from one event to another.   but I then saw a lot of other 'rules' including      If the sequence is clear, the past perfect is not needed.   which is slightly different, less 'narrow' and can be applied in more situations than the first ruleA, and      The past perfect is optional only when talking about an action at a specific time.   This is confusing. Can anyone here clarify things out please?    A For example, for  Doing the survey [completed] -&gt; Showing the result      We showed the result of the survey we did.      If the second rule is applied, the sentence above is fine (the sequence is clear), but not if the first rule since we are not moving from any event to the next and possibly even going back.    1  and   2 Practical English Usage (2005) by Michael Swan, Collins Cobuild Student's Grammar (1991). Upper-Intermediate Cutting Edge.  3 including , , ,  etc.
123370
The rule says if the order of two actions/events is clear then the past perfect is not necessary, i.e. you can use past simple. So if the sentence has before or after then the order is clear and therefore the rule applies.  says the first sentence is incorrect. Is he/she right? If so, how do you explain what appears, to me, to be contradictory?     If the Past Perfect is not referring to an action at a specific time,   Past Perfect is not optional. Compare the examples below. Here Past   Perfect is referring to a lack of experience rather than an action at   a specific time. For this reason, Simple Past cannot be used.      Examples:      She never saw a bear before she moved to Alaska. Not Correct      She had never seen a bear before she moved to Alaska. Correct   They say "a lack of experience rather than an action". Saying that just does not solve the problem I have which is the past simple fits the rule of order of events. Not seeing is a negative event with the verb "to see".  I hope the answer won't be this is how we speak or this is how English works or since when languages are logical!
111511
It had now been two weeks since he had left the house.   Is this use of since correct? Is the tense of the verb after it correct?
113999
I have seen this sentence in an article on bbc, which is about how people lived thousands of years ago. &quot;When this Neolithic home was built, it would have had a cosy roof of turf..&quot; When I read it, I got confused. Because the fact seems as a simple past situation or guessing/assumption about something in the past. it simply gives information about a past event, eg &quot;when I was a child, I had a blue toy car. I have been making a lot of research on whether or not this structure &quot;would+have+past participle&quot; could be used instead of the simple past or &quot;must+have+past participle&quot;, but I could not find any satisfying explanation. Almost all grammer contents cover this structure is used when we imagine the opposite of what actually happened in the past eg. &quot;referring to a missed opportunity&quot; (eg. &quot;if you had come to the party, you would have seen Tom.&quot;), But, in this case of this sentence, &quot;type 3 conditional&quot; is irrelevant. It is not an if sentence,  It simply gives information about how this house was like or was probably like when it was built long ago. Just like it would be If and old lady would want to tell about &quot;how she was like when she was a child years ago. she would simply say &quot;when I was a child, I had long curly hair.**. So &quot;when I was a child, I would have had long curly hair.&quot; would be wrong. So, my question is: 1-Does this structure &quot;would+have+past participle&quot; completely replace simple past sentences? or can be it be used instead of simple past? 2- If this structure was simply used because the author was not %100 sure about the fact as it was a long long time ago -so he wanted to make a guess or assumption, why did he not simply use &quot;must+have+past participle&quot; or &quot;it was likely that blah blah&quot; which must be used for guessing or assumptions about past happenings. Would it not have made more sense if it was like: &quot;When this Neolithic home was built, it must have had a cosy roof of turf.
115405
Are they here?  1) Yes. They arrived.  2) Yes. They have arrived.    I cannot understand what the difference is.  Of course I know 1) is 'past' and 2) is 'present perfect'  But in my country, 'Present perfect tense' is not exist.  So I cannot understand detail meaning between them.  My teacher told me that 'Present perfect tense' occurred in the past, but still related to present.  But I cannot figure out.  Here is another dialogue that I cannot understand.    Are you hungry?  1) I had lunch.  2) I have had lunch.    Please tell me the difference between them.   Thank you.
19624
how are you?  Well, my biggest doubt at the moment is the difference between these two tenses. Actually, the more I study the more I have doubts with these tenses.      /         These similar threads helped me to clarify and reiterate my previous understanding.   I'm not posting in these threads because the site suggests avoiding asking for clarification (I don't know why because it would avoid new threads with the same content).  My main doubt is as follows:     I've lived in New York for two years.   In my understanding, the sentence above implies (1) that I lived in NY for two years and now I live in another place; or (2) I'm moving to another city after two years living in NY; or (3) I lived in NY for two years, then I moved to another place for some period and, finally, I'm returning. Is that correct?     I've been living in New York for two years.   Whereas the sentence above, in my understanding, implies that I lived in NY for two years and I still living there.  Anyway, many sources that I've already read say that these two sentences have the same meaning and are interchangeable. Therein lies my question. Is that correct? Because if these two sentences are interchangeable, it destroys all my understanding.  Thanks in advance.
50660
I just came across this question:      This tree (be) _____ planted by the settlers who (found) _____ our city over four hundred years ago.    I think "over four hundred years ago" is an unspecified time. My answer was that the two gaps require present perfect. So I was a little surprised with the answer that both of them require simple past. Why is this the case?
36538
I have been learning English for 7 years now, and I have read so many grammar books with rules, telling the difference between Present Perfect and Past Simple and I still find it hard to distinguish them.   On paper, it is easy, if it is not a certain (exact) time in the past without any time markers (yesterday, a month ago, etc) it is past simple. Yes, but outside the classroom it is really harder than this . I have heard many people speaking how they want to, mixing the tenses.   So, I will give these sentences which i have heard to be constructed differently, please, if someone can explain the difference to me.     Have you enjoyed the party? / Did you enjoy the party?      I have given the documents today. / I gave the documents today.      I have done this when I have revised it. / I did it when I revised it      What did you do today? / What have you done today ?   Is it possible to use past simple without mentioning a definite time in the past  (without the time markers)?     It has been 3 years since we moved house. / It has been 3 years since we have moved house.      I know him since we met each other/ I know him since we have met each other   Correct me if some of the sentences are grammatically wrong!
2395
I noticed that my American friends tend to use the past perfect form when they use the verb mention in its past form, almost despite of the context of the sentence. I hear them say  "you had mentioned" a lot more often even in situations where the use of simple past would have been perfectly fine. Have you noticed it too and is it one of those unwritten rules, or is there a more formal explanation to it?  It seems like there was more verbs like that, but I am having a hard time remembering it now. If I do, I will edit the post and likely change the title to accommodate other verbs.
80971
I've been noticing in conversations that people often use past or present or future progressive where I would normally use past, present or future simple. I know some rules about interrupted actions that are always described by progressive tenses. But today during listening some podcast, the lecturer said      Initially I was planning to make this podcast...   So my question is why to use progressive tense here? Could we use simple here? I suppose there is some difference in meaning, but have no idea where to start digging.
24703
I read (or do I say "have read"?) many rules for when to use the present perfect. I found them complex and hard to understand (or do I say "have found"?). I am finding it hard to apply these rules in real sentences.  Is there a simple and clear way to explain the difference between past simple and present perfect? If there is a simple explanation, please tell it! If there is no simple explanation, please tell why it is so complicated. Maybe if I knew why there is no simple explanation, that would help me understand what work I need to do in order to learn the difference.
58862
I know the rule is to use past simple when you specify the time when the described action happened, but I strangely dislike this sentence and I'm not sure if the rule applies:   "It's the best movie I saw this year".  Shouldn't it be: "It's the best movie I've seen this year"?  Please, could you justify your answers? Thank you in advance!  Cheers
96795
In 1999, I was living in Cuba.      In 1999, I lived in Cuba.   Do both sentences seem grammatically correct?   My teacher had told that the first sentence, which is with past continuous, is incorrect. I don't know whether or not the first sentence is correct. It indeed seems natural, doesn't it?
99836
I heard many people saying "he just left the room", but I read that just(recently) is used with present perfect. So are people just omitting has?
48403
I have a doubt in the below sentence whether to use Past Simple or Present Perfect Tense,     We have despatched the parcel yesterday.      We despatched the parcel yesterday.   I know the second one is right because the parcel was despatched yesterday which means the action is completed (Past Tense).  But what about the first sentence, because the parcel was despatched, however the parcel is not reached the customer yet. So is it ok to use "have despatched" in the sentence (Present Perfect) in the mail to inform the customer?
83254
"I already knew how to do it."[Tr included within Tsit]..., in this imperfective aspectuality which is reference time and situation time please answer for this by using time line because in this sentence there are two verbs(knew and do) are used so it is difficult to understand imperfective aspectuality from this sentence ? The sentence is in CGEL page no.126
24811
I'm describing a situation that happened in the past. To explain it, I want to use a description that is both true now and true when the situation happened.  Specifically, I want something like:     She touched me where my neck met my collarbone.   Since my neck is still attached to my collarbone (thankfully), I'm wondering if I shouldn't use the present tense here instead:     She touched me where my neck meets my collarbone.   Which is preferable, and why?