Override is formed from the irregular verb ride.
The Principal Parts of ride are ride, rode, ridden.
That means the PPs of override are override, overrode, overridden.
With me so far?
OK, the first PP in each case is the Infinitive form (to ride, to override).
The second PP is the Past form (They rode it, They overrode it)
The third PP is the Perfect ...
The Present Perfect Construction in English has the following uses (cf. McCawley 1971):
(a) The Universal sense of the Perfect, used to indicate that a state of affairs prevailed throughout some interval stretching from the past into the present
• I've known Max since 1960.
(b) The Existential sense of the Perfect, used to indicate the existence of past ...
I would use quit, as it is more readily understood by people. Dictionary.com indicates that both are plausible. Merriam Webster says the same.
Looking through Google books, quitted seems to be used synonymously with left, e.g.,
Plato quitted Athens, where he was adored as a god ...
I quitted Manchester, I quitted Mrs. ++++++++, I quitted ++++++++ hall ....
New verbs normally occur as regular verbs, so you'd expect past tense and past participle texted. However, for reasons of phonology, some speakers may produce the past tense and past participle as text. Only time will tell which form wins. Perhaps they'll remain alternatives.
Although the current meaning of text is new, it first occurred as a verb around ...
It's an example of the past subjunctive:
Like the term present subjunctive, past subjunctive can be misunderstood, as it describes a form rather than a meaning. The past subjunctive is so named because it resembles the past indicative in form, but the difference between them is a difference in modality, not in temporality. For ...
The Oxford English Dictionary records casted as being used as the past tense of cast from the Middle English period to the sixteenth century. The latest citation showing its use is dated 1526. If it is making a comeback, I haven’t heard or seen it, but that may be because it is not widespread in contemporary British English. The British National Corpus has ...
Your only error is that the causative form is fell in the present tense: A logger fells trees today. Otherwise you've got it right.
causative: fell, felled, has/be felled, as opposed to
intransitive: fall, fell, has fallen
However, felling a dynasty or regime, or anything except a man, animal, or tree, is pretty rare today; OED 1 was already marking ...
While technically your statement is true--he remains, and in fact will always be, the first person to reach the South Pole--nevertheless the use of the present tense is not called for unless he is currently at the South Pole at the culmination of his groundbreaking journey, or unless he remains the only person to have made it to the South Pole; in both cases,...
The main difference is the use of objects. 'Told' can only be used as a transitive verb. 'Said' can be used either way, but is most commonly used in the intransitive form. Personally I've only seen the transitive form used with a direct quotation, as illustrated below.
I told him the moon was made of cheese.
I said the moon was made of cheese.
The traditional RP pronunciation of ate is /ɛt/. The second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary agrees:
/ɛt/, occasionally /eɪt/.
I believe Charivarius also has /ɛt/. From his famous poem about the inconsistent spelling of English, The Chaos:
Reefer does not rhyme with deafer,
Feoffer does, and zephyr, heifer.
Dull, bull, Geoffrey, George, ...
“Have you done it?” is the question to ask if you want to know:
whether a task is finished, or
whether they have experience with some task.
For example, if you want to know whether a report is done, or whether somebody has gone sky diving before, you can ask, “Have you done it?” In the first case, you could also ask, “Have you done it yet?” In the latter, ...
The past tense locates a past event at a specific point in time. In your example, my birthday is clearly a past event at a specific point in time, and it’s that that makes the past tense, got, appropriate. I got a horse poster answers the question What did you get for your birthday?
If your daughter had been speaking on her actual birthday, she might have ...
Apparently not. There are only four citations for it in the whole of the OED, the most recent being dated 1596. The reason for its being seldom used is the same reason why other words are seldom used: they serve no useful purpose.
The past tense of leap is today rightly spelt leapt when pronounced with the DRESS vowel rather than with the FLEECE vowel, so /lɛpt/ rhyming with kept.
In contrast, lept is an obsolete spelling of leapt seldom seen since the 1500s, back before the standardization of English spelling.
bleed > bled
breed > bred
creep > crept
dream > dreamt
feed > ...
Following to, the verb is in the infinitive and has no tense. So you should use the base form: get. Nor is this the perfect. Here, the had is part of the idiomatic have to, meaning that there was no option but to get used to it.
To a first approximation both OP's sentences are valid - certainly they both mean exactly the same. But if I'm going to get "picky", I don't much like the first one...
?I sent you a letter a few days ago, I was wondering if you have received it.
...because there's a subtle clash of tense. "I was wondering" refers to my wondering in the past, but "if you ...
"Does the verb cast have a form as casted?"
Yes. This may surprise you, but grammarist explains:
The verb cast is conventionally uninflected in the past tense and as a past participle. Casted is an old form—examples are easily found in texts from every century from the 14th to the present—but it has given way to cast in modern English. In ...
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 ...
The apostrophe + s is usually understood to mean a shortened form of is or has. It would not be understood to represent a different tense of be.
She's at home yesterday.
would be read as
She is at home yesterday.
which is incorrect.
(of course, the apostrophe can shorten other words as well, such as have, but that is not relevant to your question. ...
Instead of thinking about specific time, it may be more helpful to distinguish between finished time (past simple) and unfinished time (present perfect).
If the season is still in progress, then it needs to be:
How many points have you scored this season? (unfinished season)
If the season has just ended, you would normally ask:
How many points did you ...
You would normally use the past tense. There is no auxiliary there.
However, there is historic confusion about whether the past of shrink is supposed to be shrank or shrunk. Shrunk as the past dominated through the 18th century, and remained common during the 19th century; it still survives today as a minority alternative to shrank. Sir Walter Scott ...
Marveling was probably given as the correct answer because it matches seeing, seeing and marveling being the things he remembered. However, a different interpretation would allow marveled. That would be the case if you considered that a new finite clause followed and, meaning that he remembered and he marveled were being treated as two separate events.
The past perfect construction is used to describe a past event that precedes another past event. In the example, the first event is the wind blowing out the candle, and the second event is the speakers finding themselves in the dark. That makes the second sentence an entirely appropriate way of saying what happened.
The crucial word that indicates the ...
If the first part is in the past, then the second part has to be, too. It doesn’t make sense otherwise.
I knew you were John’s brother when first I saw you.
That doesn’t mean you’re no longer John’s brother. It’s just how these things work.
This is very squishy, actually. In some cases you could interchange them and no problem with it. But in others you couldn't. In your example, they are equivalent.
"Seek"/"Sought" can be quite passive or much less active than "Search/Searched". "Seek" can be quite theoretical, which "search" is not.
"I seek for the greater good of all mankind." I ...
"Were" would be subjunctive, expressing a condition contrary to fact ("If there were anything that he didn't want [but there wasn't anything that he didn't want]"); "was" would be a simple condition. So you want "was" here.
OK, in questions 19 and 20 the time expressions are different. Present Perfect is the "best" solution for 19, but Simple Past could also be used.
19) I have drunk three cups of coffee today.
For question 20 the Simple Past is the only appropriate form given the choice between Present Perfect and Simple Past.
20) I drank three cups of coffee ...