0
  1. X never appeared.
  2. X has never appeared.
  3. X never came into being.
  4. X has never come into being.
  • 1
    They're all fine. It really is just a stylistic choice how you want to express this concept, but for what it's worth I would probably go for #3 myself in most contexts. – FumbleFingers Dec 15 '16 at 13:30
  • 2
    I think that all of them are ambiguous, because they don't express the important fact that X never "appeared" because it has always existed. It would be equally true to say "X never came into being (because it has always existed), and Y never came into being (because it has never existed)." To be clear and unambiguous, it might be necessary to say something like "X never 'came into being' per se, having always existed." – stangdon Dec 15 '16 at 15:20
  • Can it be "X always existed without ever coming into being"? – Serguei Dec 15 '16 at 16:05
  • 2
    That's not bad, although I think I would phrase it has "X has always existed, without ever having come into being." I'm using has always existed, because it currently exists ("always existed" makes it sound like it was only in the past) and without having come into being because "without ever coming into being" sounds like a description of the present. – stangdon Dec 15 '16 at 16:08
  • Will you make this an answer? – Serguei Dec 16 '16 at 14:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.