I had never done anything crazy in my life before I started learning how to skydive five months ago.      I never did anything crazy in my life before I started learning......   Are both the above sentences grammatically correct? I see natives not using past perfects all the time.   I was on  and if you would scroll down a bit, you'd see a sentence:     "She never saw a bear before she moved to Alaska."    It is deemed incorrect.
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!
25147
I remember (vaguely) reading somewhere that it is wrong to use the present perfect when the subject of a sentence is someone who is long dead:     *Einstein has visited the Philippines.   My question is, What if the dead person is not the subject but an object:     Leo is the best president our country has/had ever had. (The ones who   succeeded him were inferior, even our current president.)   Which tense is proper here
91746
Accourding to ,   We often use "been to" when we refer to completed visits to a place:  Have you ever been to Budapest?  Not: Have you ever gone to Budapest?  If the visit is not complete, we use "gone to".  Joan’s just gone to the shop. She’ll be back in about ten minutes. (Joan has not yet returned from the shop.)  Joan’s just been to the shop. She bought some cakes. Would you like one? (Joan has returned from the shop.)  Now, does that rule apply to the  "Have been on a trip" &amp; "Have gone on a trip"?  So, "I have been on a trip" (I completed the trip &amp; currently I am staying at home)  "I have gone on a trip" (I haven't completed the trip &amp; currently I am on the trip)  And what about "gone crazy" &amp; "been crazy".  Does "He has gone crazy" mean now he is still crazy?  Does "He has been crazy" mean now he is not crazy any more?  Are there any differences between "Have been on a trip" vs "Have gone on a trip" and "Have been crazy" vs "Have gone crazy"?  Note: I am not asking about "been to" or "gone to". I am asking about "been on a trip" &amp; "gone on a trip". Do we apply the same rule of "been to" or "gone to" to "been on a trip" &amp; "gone on a trip"?  Note2:  seems to prove that my thinking is right.
12698
Regarding actions taken in the past, besides the differences those two tenses have semantically, my teacher shared that it could be a British vs American English case.   When talking about past action, British prefers present perfect because they take into account that the effect from their past action still happens until now. As for American, they prefer to state the action only. It happened in the past, so past tense it is.     I have had dinner. [British]   vs.      I had dinner. [American]   I hope to hear it from the native speakers, both British and American. What do you think about this? Is it true?  If it is, I don't think it can apply to all cases of past actions. There have to be cases when both style agree to use the same tenses. Could you please help me define the situation when this kind of difference applies and when doesn't?
78731
What is the difference in meaning between the two examples below?   When she returned home from office, she was shocked to see that her husband and daughter were missing. (Simple Past)  When she returned home from office, she was shocked to see that her husband and daughter had been missing. (Past Perfect)    FIRST QUESTION: For me example #1 gives only idea of Status of her missing husband and daughter and example #2 gives idea of completed action/situation of missing husband and daughter before she reached home. Is this right? SECOND QUESTION: Is example #2 past perfect or past perfect continuous?
40369
What are the difference between the following sentence?    I ate apples. I have eaten apples.    When should we use simple past tense? When should we use perfect past tense?
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?
98173
A friend of mine who's a native English speaker corrected me the other day. I said something like "it's not something no-one has done before". He told me about the rule that states that double negatives cancel out, thus making the sentence affirmative. He told me I should rather say "no-one hasn't done before".  I can see at least two ways of saying the same thing:   "It's not something no-one has ever done" "It's not something someone hasn't done before"   According to the rule, these sentences will convey an affirmative meaning as well.  What I want to say is basically:     Someone has done this before.   Which is an affirmation. What's wrong with double negation then?
14411
Here I know I have one present perfect and present perfect continuous sentence.   I have lived in Europe for 2 years. I have been living in Europe for 2 years.   Can you use both of them interchangeably? What is the exact difference between them? To me both suggest that the person is still living in Europe.
109675
I encountered this sentence when I was learning another language. I have never used such a sentence in English nor seen one, but it seems it exists.  What idea does this sentence trying to convey? What time should we relate to?
113098
Repeating the indefinite article. Is it a matter of style? If so, which quote is more natural [or maybe sounds better]?     My name is Amy Purdy, I am a survivor, snowboarder, founder of   Adaptive Action Sports, globetrotter and daydreamer.   vs.     My name is Amy Purdy, I am a survivor, a snowboarder, a founder of   Adaptive Action Sports, a globetrotter and a daydreamer.   Source: Amy Purdy Note: the first comma is from the source. It should be replaced by a period.
120502
A colleague asked me which of these sentences is correct, or if they are both correct which is better to use.   Are you using the current template version? Do you use the current template version?   I recommended using the first sentence but only because it sounds better to me.  Is there anything grammatically wrong with the second sentence or does it convey a different meaning to the first sentence?
9787
I have been taught that it's grammatically proper to use the before countries like "Sudan and Yemen" but I was never given a reason (if there exists any, of course) when I asked why, except for "it is one of those ambiguous parts of English language that we &ndash; as non-native speakers &ndash; should just accept without trying to look for a reason". Now, I'd like to know if there is any answer to this "why" or I should keep on believing that there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to questions like these.
71127
According to  the use of past simple and present perfect is quite strict in British English, while in American English you can normally use simple past instead of present perfect:  In British English, the use of Simple Past and Present Perfect is quite strict. As soon as a time expression in the past is given, you have to use Simple Past. If there are no signal words, you must decide if we just talk about an action in the past or if its consequence in the present is important. Note that the following explanations and exercises refer to British English only. In American English, you can normally use Simple Past instead of Present Perfect. We cannot accept this in our exercises, however, as this would lead to confusions amongst those who have to learn the differences.  In the case of the noun to choose, if I'm correct, the difference between &quot;did choose&quot; and &quot;have chosen&quot;; the second is more definitive than the last. Can somebody give me a clear example of where the British use diverges from American English? As a non-native speaker, I find it hard to see/feel the difference between its use in British- and American English respectively.
12775
I know the past tense carries the past tense in every dependent clause, but referring specifically to places or to things that are eternal, like the Earth, seems a bit weird and therefore we sometimes (I believe incorrectly) say     He didn't know that New Jersey was actually on the East Coast.   Because it still is. Or     He thought the Earth was round.   So is it square now?  Logically speaking, would you consider the use of past tense here a bit confusing in a day-to-day speech in these examples? Would you instinctively opt for using the present tense?
47492
Please have a look at this sentence:     We haven't gotten a lot of Finnish groups that we liked here at Bananas but I'm pretty happy with this four tracker from Helsinki, apparently recorded in the same place where the Ramones played in the 70's.     The first verb is in present perfect (up to now) and the second is in simple past tense. I don't understand the simple past for the second verb.  Why "like" is not in its present perfect form as the first verb is?
2595
When telling a story about myself from the past, I have found myself in an internal debate over whether the correct way to segue into the present is:     That was me twelve years ago.   Or:     That was I twelve years ago.   My instincts tell me the first is correct (object pronoun after a verb and it sounds better to my ears). But, I'm not sure if pronouns after linking verbs should be object pronouns. Which is correct?