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 ...
“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 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, ...
"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 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. ...
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.
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 used ...
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.
Would use of habitual past be considered "weak" writing or prose as opposed to simple past?
Perhaps by some. If so, it's the sort of opinion that can work perfectly well in guiding ones own style, but would make someone a fool if they started prescribing it as one everyone should follow.
Really, no common form is "weak" in and of itself, and developing a ...
Yes, it is perfectly idiomatic since the perfect and the past tenses relate to different time conditions.
Although he has watched football all his life, he didn't go to today's match.
The first verb relates to something that has been going on throughout the subject's lifetime, the second to what he did today.
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 ...
If I were reading a story that began
I knew Mr. Brown for exactly 15 minutes. He had met me at the entrance and was now accompanying me to the meeting.
I would expect the following things of the story:
Mr. Brown would die 15 minutes after he had met First Person Narrator.
FPN's second sentence would begin a narration of the circumstances of his death.
If the findings were reported "many years ago" then that should be made explicit in your Position Paper.
Once the date is included in the sentence, then both "report" and "accept" will be forced into the past tense.
Failure to do so represents an implicit claim (by you) that the situation is unchanged since the original report. Such a claim probably ...
Almost ten years ago, I checked and recorded the relative popularity of leaped and leapt in Google results, because the following assertion in Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1989) intrigued me: "In American English, leaped and leapt seem to be used with about equal frequency." Recognizing that leapt is somewhat more common in British (and British ...
People don’t usually say I have wanted to ask . . . because the wanting has probably continued over a period of time. To describe that state of affairs, it is more usual to say I have been wanting to ask…
I think OP's basic premise is mistaken (Here are about 5,700 results from Google Books for "I have wanted to ask", so it's certainly not true that we never say it.
And in some contexts ("I've always wanted to ask", or "I have wanted to ask for some time now"), Present Perfect is arguably more natural than Simple Past "I wanted to ask".
As OP suspects (and ...
There are three sentences in which the interaction of tenses, is being examined for error:
During the 1950s, the Detroit area emerges as a metropolitan region with the construction of an extensive freeway system that had
expanded in ensuing decades.
In a discovery at least fifty years in the making, a new and bizarre dinosaur species has been ...
This is a question of 'past simple' (didn't think) vs 'past perfect' (hadn't thought). Past simple is used to indicate that something happened before the present. Past perfect is used to indicate that something happened before some other past event.
So with this specific question lets label each of the events/actions:
A - It was late
B - I was trying to ...
British Proscription, America the Evil Twin
Comparing American and British English, the 2018 edition of the Oxford Companion to the English Language repeats verbatim the same observation from twenty years before:
Perfective forms. With yet and already, such perfective sentences as Have you eaten yet? and They've already left are shared usages. Such ...
There is a mismatch of tenses, which is bad style. Since working and check are parallel verbs in the sentence, and there is no semantic reason to put them in different tenses, they should be in the same tense. So your friend was correct in that something was wrong with the sentence, but it's not clear that he identified the correct "obvious error".
I suspect it's more common to say, for example, "I decided to forgo treatment" rather than "I forwent treatment." But why?
I think there is a tendency to avoid using non-basic forms (also known as the other 'principal parts') of irregular verbs that are themselves uncommon in the present tense. I suspect this is so because people cannot remember the proper ...
The perfect tense, used in the second sentence, indicates something done in the past, which has a continuing effect on the present. To ask the first could mean nothing, as their hands could have been washed yesterday, or maybe even today and are now dirty. The second, however, is much more effective in interrogation.
In terms of time, it's not necessarily in the future.
It's in the future-of-the-past. The event of the lion next going for a walk is an event that can take place any time between the past event of her making that decision, and what is still the future. It could be tomorrow, but if the lion decided this last week, then that walk could have been yesterday.
My first job in journalism was to write obituaries for the Colorado Springs Sun, which in 1986 became the subject of an obituary itself. There I was taught not to use the phrase "passed away." "It is a euphemism for people who are uncomfortable with 'death.' And people who aren't comfortable with 'death,' don't read the obituary section,&...