... 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 ...
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.
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 ...
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 being used.
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 ...
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' ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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.’
Your promotion ...
'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 ...
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!"
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 ...
I wouldn't be so sure that anger is a "temporary state on its own". Some people seem to be angry all the time!
I am being [adjective] can be used to mean that you are only displaying a certain behaviour for a limited period of time.
Contrary to @tchrist, that construction does not strike me as odd at all. In fact, it can convey nuances that the present ...
While present progressive is routinely used to indicate an ongoing activity, it als can express an evolving activity. The clause I am seeing you is often used to indicate a dawning recognition
For the first time, I am seeing you for the cad that you are!
Perception is often a report of a fairly momentary event, and in those cases, progressive would not ...
This is a strange theory that is provably wrong. It is easy to trace "I am working" back to determine that it has not developed from "I am at working", and it is obvious that the rheinische Verlaufsform is different from the English Present Progressive in other ways, not just the preposition. For starters, it uses the nominalized bare infinitive, and it uses ...
Q: What are you doing at the moment?
A: I'm teaching English at a language school.
Does this mean the person is teaching at the moment of speaking. No, it doesn't. We use the present continuous tense to talk about things that are in progress or for actions that are, for the time being, temporary in nature. The fact your friend replied using the present ...
To begin with the active sentence is not strictly grammatical. It needs to have I have or an it's between and and not. But that is not particularly important as it doesn't affect the main point.
Neither of the passive suggestions are fully correct.
It should, in my view, be He has been being told a long story by me and it's not finished yet.
If someone or something is headed somewhere, it means an orientation toward a particular destination. If someone is heading somewhere, then there is motion toward that destination, either currently or the near future. This, of course, is not a mutually exclusive distinction:
One afternoon I had been rambling around in the hills east of town and was headed ...
It is grammatically correct but it has not quite the same meaning as
Lasers are used to treat different skin conditions
which may just explain the function of lasers.
Lasers are being used to treat different skin conditions
indicates they are actually in operation.
You would use "had" for a possession or other permanent object like the camera in your example.
You would use "been having" for events (especially a series of events) or other duration-based things:
How long have you been having these parties?
How long have you been having these symptoms?
How long have you been having problems with ...
I've had a headache since past.time.point is normal, idiomatic, and grammatical.
*I'm having a headache since past.time.point, however, is ungrammatical,
because the present progressive construction ('m having) refers to the present moment,
while the prepositional phrase (since past.time.point) refers to a length of time in the past,
starting at past.time....
If it were boats, you could definitely say
Pat has got an interesting hobby. She builds boats.
However, because it's about a particular boat, you cannot build it over and over again, hence the simple present (which implies regularity, recurrence) is not very appropriate.
The present continuous, on the other hand, is not necessarily used for actions ...
After some research I came across this remarkable academic document "On the progression of the progressive in early Modern English - icame": Please, read especially page 7, I think this is the actual puzzle piece we're looking for! Here some excerpts:
"... There seems to be pretty general agreement that at least as far as form is concerned it derives most ...