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?


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."

  • 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 Aug 25 at 19:54

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.