My guess is that you read a table something like this:
Present Simple (I eat)
habitually; in general.
as a command
Present Continuous (I am eating
at this point
at this point, continuously
at a point in the future.
Past Simple (I ate)
at a point in the past.
Past Continuous (I was eating)
at a point in the past continuously
and found it ...
... you can't present perfect (or continuous) and past simple within a sentence.
As it stands, this rule is incorrect. In many cases it is acceptable and logical to mix past and present references in consecutive clauses
I lost my keys last week, but now I have found them.
This makes sense: A was true then, but B is true now.
This, however, ...
One strange property of the perfect tense is that it refers to two times: the time in the past when the action was performed, and the time indicated by the auxiliary verb (to have). Depending upon usage, a sentence using the perfect tense can be more about the present (or the time of the auxiliary verb) than it is about the past:
A: Are you hungry?
B: I ...
The construction employed in the question is determined by the construction employed in the declarative sentence - the 'answer' you are looking for.
Look is an activity verb, and usually takes the progressive construction in reporting a present action; in a question, subject/auxiliary inversion operates with the existing auxiliary BE:
That man is ...
Your past perfect tense starts in the infinite past for any action, but it doesn't have to happen so. I include an illustration for the verb see in the past perfect from the following text, written around 2010, which is about a movie that was shelved in 1981, kept for two decades, but finally released around 2002. So, instead of two reference points on the ...
The rule you quote is simplistic. It is quite permissible to mix all sorts of tenses within one sentence. The issue is whether the time relationships that they convey make sense.
Take a simpler case: present and future. Would a blanket rule that you should never mix present and future in a sentence be valid? No. "Bob owns the house and so he will paint it ...
Among other uses, the auxiliary verb, would, is used to express an assumption, presumption or expectation in the past. The "would (and in some cases should) + present perfect" is formed with the present tense of have, and the past participle of the verb
would/should + have + past participle
Someone called after you left but didn't leave a message.
In fairly rare, formal English, "to be wanting" can mean "to be lacking", "to be deficient":
Several aspects of his performance were sadly wanting.
Apart from that, "want" with its usual meaning is normally a stative verb: in other words, it suggests a "general property" rather than the types of 'punctual' meaning that would usually warrant progressive ...
Short answer: Yes, it's fine. Totally fine.
If you're interested:
It's the progressive passive; a combination of the progressive aspect and the passive voice. It does have a subject, which is lasers. But being passive the subject is the patient rather than the agent of the verb.
There're two passive forms in English.
Lasers are used.
Lasers are ...
The main difference would be that any continuous tense of know will be frowned upon. "I am knowing", "I was knowing", "I will be knowing" all make little sense, as we don't perceive the act of knowing as a feasible thing. Knowing something is a state, not an action.
I can say I am biking, I am painting, I am thinking.
But when I describe a state, a static ...
Knowing happens but once -- unlike waiting, you don't stretch the process of knowing someone over an extended period. It happens at a moment of time. That is why, I suppose.
You could, on the other hand, be getting to know the person better over ten years.
Syntactically, yes, the sentence is correct. It's the Passive Future Progressive.
The direct derivation is:
Michael will be drinking water. >>> Water will be being drunk by
But the real question is, what do you want to mean by it, and in what situation?
You would have to be referring to a particular moment or point in time in the future. ...
The word have has multiple definitions. Here are two:
1 Possess, own, or hold.
‘he had a new car and a boat’
4 Perform the action indicated by the noun specified (used especially in spoken English as an alternative to a more specific verb)
‘We will be having a meeting soon to examine our options, to see what is possible.’
The present tense is typically used to indicate habitual aspect, while the construction be + -ing form of the verb indicates progressive aspect, showing that an event occurs at the time of speaking or over a period of time before and after it.
That’s what’s going on in these examples. The first and third ones describe what you are doing over a period of ...
Apparently I found this expression in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Valley of Fear. Here an official detective – Alec MacDonald, a Scotchman – uses it while describing his joy at listening to Sherlock Holmes. The lines are as follows:
"Ay, that's remarkable," said the inspector thoughtfully. "Talk away, Mr. Holmes. I'm just loving it. It's fine!"
'Wanting', in the sense - 'lacking in necessary quality', functions as an adjective as in 'the company's seriousness in trying to bring down the attrition rate has been found wanting'.
Therefore, 'I'm wanting a car' would seem to mean -'I lack a car'. More natural would be – 'I want a car'.
'Want' belongs to a category of verbs called 'stative verbs' and ...
Many words describing senses and emotions tend not to be used in the progressive/continuous form. Although many such verbs are either so abstract as to make temporal distinction unnecessary, or relate to a single instance (as Kris points out with "know") it isn't the case with all of them.
Such verbs are called stative (or state) verbs and include: like, ...
The Past Progressive is needed here because the writer is detailing the sort of marriage and the consequences of such a marriage.
He married her. He married up. They raised 10 kids.
-- and --
He married her. He was marrying up. They raised 10 kids.
You will notice that the first case (with the Past Simple, your alternative) seems to talk ...
It's not really good English grammar. It does feel awkward, as has been noted. That's the giveaway, to a native speaker.
And of course nothing like this is treated in school grammars, because they're still talking about English as if it were Latin, with six tenses, two voices, three or four cases, and all sorts of other zombie phenomena. This educational ...
In this particular case, there is a difference. But only because -- as usual -- the sentence has been modified by a transformation. Twice. By the same transformation.
The noun phrase in question:
another funny noise, like a mouse being trodden on
consists of the NP another funny noise, modified by a reduced nonrestrictive relative clause, which itself ...
Yes, it's fine, providing you want it to mean what it says.
Going to... indicates a future action:
I'm going to hit him
I'm going to vomit
So you can express the future action of going somewhere:
I'm going to go somewhere
You can add the reason for that future action.
I'm going to hit him to show my disapproval.
I'm going to go to show ...
The verb (to be) in your sentence is in Simple Future (also known as Future Indefinite) tense. Some grammarians will argue that English does not have a future tense at all, but if we stick to the traditional EFL classification, will+infinitive means Simple Future. Future continuous is will+be+ing, as in
I will be sitting on this couch the whole day ...
I disagree. I see it as the same of the use of the simple present for the future ("I leave next week" is also valid). "I'm leaving next week" in no way implies that "I'm leaving today" in some sense; in fact, it has the opposite implication.
To me, what it seems is that the use of phrase specifying the time, such as "next week," establishes the reference ...
There is a subtle difference. To my ear "Are you still working there?" is the more aggressive and challenging form, as in "Jeez, why are you staying at that crappy job?"
"Do you still work there?" sounds more neutral, as in "Hey, I haven't seen you since I left company x. Do you still hang out with those people?"
That might be because ARE YOU can be an ...
They're all just stylistic choices, with no difference in nuance of meaning.
The only context where "regular, repeat event" comes into play is when you say something like "The London train leaves at 8 o'clock" - if you don't specify any particular day, the implication is it does so every day (or at least, every week-day - it may leave at a different time, ...