The exclusion of "was" is actually an example of Gapping, a form of Elliptical Construction. Ellipsis is almost, but not quite, the opposite of Parallelism; Ellipsis means leaving out duplicated information, while Parallelism is about deliberately adding in duplication for emphasis.
It is possible that you may be inferring Parallelism from the use ...
(1) and (2) are correct (assuming you have just completed the action described).
Assuming that the course remains important for your future, use (3) rather than (4). (It was important implies that it has since ceased to be important.)
They're both correct, but they mean slightly different things.
It seems to me the best answer would be
... because we had a fever.
This says that you had a fever last night, but doesn't say whether you had a fever before last night, or whether you have a fever now. That's all the information you really need to convey.
Both the alternatives work, but carry ...
Here are some that might fit the bill:
He learns words nobody seems to know how. Yesterday I stopped to speak
to him as I went to school, and a lady came, who had several teeth
taken out by the dentist to prepare for a set of artificial ones. He
noticed the change at once, and fixing his eyes on her mouth, said, "
Ma'am, you're a natural curosity. &...
Yes, it means 1991. But that has nothing to do with past perfect, it would be the same with simple past:
I saw him last five years before.
The word "before" needs a time to refer to, and the only possible reference in this context is "1996". It's short for "before then".
To refer to a time relative to the current date you ...
The question the grandchildren will ask is:
"What was 2020 like?"
You should retain the past tense in your statement. So it should be:
Your grandchildren will ask what 2020 was like.
Note that the usual expression is What is x like?, not How is x like?
Without changing too many details, I came up with this.
During this time, I gained [amazing] new experiences and although it was an enjoyable period, it has always been my lifetime dream to be a teacher.
The Simple Past is used in the first two clauses because it refers to a specific and completed period of time. However, seeing as the speaker's ambition ...
The present perfect continuous (also called present perfect progressive) is a verb tense which is used to show that an action started in the past and has continued up to the present moment. The present perfect continuous usually emphasizes duration, or the amount of time that an action has been taking place.
As I understand the sentence quoted, I disagree with the author.
All the versions are valid and have different meanings.
I would have liked to see Australia.
When I was younger, to see Australia is what I would have liked. Now that I'm older, it isn't what I would like because I don't like long plane journeys.
I would like to have seen Australia.
I think the explanation you cite is a good one.
The government will make an announcement later. (There is no question of this. Short of an earthquake or other national disaster, they will make the announcement.)
The government will be making an announcement later. (This has a certain tentativeness about it. It says, "All being well, the government will ...
I didn't have so much fun for a long time.
As a native American-English speaker, I would never say this, and if I heard anyone make this statement, I would immediately assume that person was not a native speaker. Instead, I would say something like, "I haven't had that much fun in [or for] a long time."
You don't need to call him. He lost his ...
As we can see in the Cambridge Dictionary's grammar section
The present simple is used to refer to events in the future which are certain because they are facts, or because there is a clear or fixed schedule or timetable
with examples like
I work tomorrow
What time does their flight to Seoul leave?
The second example can be changed to "When does the ...
The simple answer is that usually, the word "will" isn't used after "if", "when", or similar words.
Incorrect: When the sun will rise, I will get out of bed.
Correct: When the sun rises, I will get out of bed.
Incorrect: If you will see David tomorrow, say hello to him for me.
Correct: If you see David tomorrow, say ...
The idiom in the title of the question is correct.
From Merriam-Webster's definition of cross that bridge when one comes to it:
: to not worry about a possible problem until it actually happens
// I don't know how we'll pay the bills if you quit your job, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
Consider the following variations with only when or ...
In "We will cross that bridge when we come to it", "come" is the simple present tense used to indicate the present in the future.
It is very common:
"I am in Paris tomorrow - I'll speak to you then"
"John leaves in an hour, don't let him forget his coat."
In "when we come to it", when = at the time that, i.e. ...
It doesn’t seem like a very good dialogue. I would guess they want “says”, “comes”, and “speaks”, but I agree with you that this is a bad example dialogue. I suppose - as pointed out by someone else - that it’s supposed to prompt you to imagine the context. Perhaps Ann is being humorous in saying that she supposes he is speaking Japanese because that’s an ...
This is a simple case of differing tenses. Got=past tense while gotten=present progressive.
So if you're trying to say something 'got' into her in the defined past then use that, but if you mean it's an ongoing reaction, use 'gotten.'
I would use “what got into her?” to ask about her response to a single situation, whereas “what has gotten into her?” would more likely be asked about the way she is acting over a period of time.
Karen got mad about something Matt said during the meeting. She stood abruptly and stormed out of the room.
David looked surprised. “What got into her?”
Or if this ...
There is a very good reason why the word anachronism is as it is. Its standard or most basic application is to mistakes which are the effects of ignorance or carelessness. For example, the recasting of Shakespearean plays in modern dress is not generally regarded as 'anachronistic', because the 'out of place' assault rifles etcetera are deliberate and so, ...
Jesus with a computer, and me with a time-machine are both anachronisms. Anachronisms are things that are outside their time frame, both past and future.
Lexico is lacking in its defintiond of anachronism. It has one meaning and two senses:
1. An error in computing time, or fixing dates; the erroneous reference of an event, circumstance, or custom to a ...
The first one is more idiomatically common, and I believe that is indeed what you mean to say. I will analyse the difference between the two.
(In the following, we will ignore the alternative wording suggested by the contributors in the comment section -- they may or may not be improvements, but that's irrelevant to the immediate question you are asking.)
Using the present simple to talk about an event that took place in the past is called the narrative present, the historic/al present, or the dramatic present usage. See for example ThoughtCo_Nordquist. It is used to add tension to stories, drawing the audience in:
(The door was ajar.
Matt Barratt draws his gun, aims at the figure standing on the chair, and ...
To maintain the subjunctive and use the past tense in this case (while keeping the same wording of were), you have to add several verbs in the first part of the sentence, as well as changing the tense in the second part of the sentence.
If he were imprisoned, the bolts would magically fall off.
If he ...
"Had he been imprisoned, the bolts would have magically fallen off."
or, if you like if,
"If he had been imprisoned, the bolts [etc.]."
Would these be a past conditional form? (This used to be called the pluperfect tense.)
One thing I'm confused about: is this conditional based on a belief, implied but not stated, by Copinger? That is, did Copinger ...
So of course this is a “were” conditional. Its reference is to undefined time, or more precisely not to time at all but to the hypothetical.
I like this: it is accurate.
There are two, distinct, uses of “if” (1) as the introduction to an uncertain condition to be fulfilled (2) to indicate repeating circumstances - in this case, it is equivalent to "...