1

I think this new law is great and should already have exist earlier.

This sentence doesn’t seem correct to me. I don't know what, but something is disturbing me. Is it the tense of some verb? Or a false construction?

Improve this question
0

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

You're right, there is a tense problem. "Should already have exist" should be "should already have existed." This is the past progressive (or past continuous) tense combined with a modal verb "should." The auxiliary "have" cannot be combined with the present tense form of a verb: it always takes a past participle.

A more idiomatic way to say the same thing is:

I think this new law is great and should have been passed earlier!

But the original version is grammatical when "exist" is corrected to "existed."

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    No, that's not progressive; it's perfect. Progressive uses be as an auxilary and follows it with an -ing verb form. Perfect uses have as an auxiliary and follows it with a past participle form.
    – John Lawler
    Commented Aug 25, 2019 at 19:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .