Okay, so this is a very specific answer to a very specific question. In this specific case, where there are sports teams involved, there's actually a difference in how I, as a native speaker of British English, understand those terms.
We weren't playing.
This means that the team wasn't scheduled to play. So, in the case of the weather, you might say:
When BE is cast in the progressive construction (BE + present participle), it describes the subject's current behavior, as opposed to his more or less permanent nature or character:
I was being bold means I was behaving boldly at that time.
I was being contumacious means I was behaving contumaciously at that time.
With "I had walked," it separates the walking and seeing. Therefore, that chronological order suggests the following:
Started walking down road
Finished walking down road
However, "I was walking" gives the following order:
Started walking down road
(Note how "...
They're all grammatical.
You could say
In those days, I was taking the train to work every day.
In those days, I took the train to work every day.
In those days, I would take the train to work every day.
The first, was taking, puts emphasis on the action as recurrent action, corroborating or reinforcing the meaning supplied by in those days ...
Complementing the British English perspective provided by SamBC, here's an American English perspective (more specifically Midwestern American English).
There's a slight linguistic difference between the two forms. 'Did not play.' uses the past tense of 'to do', while 'Were not playing' uses the past tense of 'to be'. In many cases in casual English, ...
It is correct. There is no grammatical requirement for clauses following the "when" conjunction to be in the continuous tense, especially not with verbs like "live" that already indicate a state, not an action.
Both versions are 100% grammatically and idiomatically correct. They have nearly identical meanings, but offer slightly different opportunities for usage.
Miguel came to the presentation but he seemed very distracted and he did not listen to anything that the speaker said.
In this sentence, the presentation is over and we know that Miguel never paid ...
When you see a sentence that has the auxiliary be + past participle, it means that the sentence is in the "passive voice". You might know the "auxiliary be" as "verb to be", which means the verb to be in any of its form, and was is one of them. You seem to already know what past participle is, which refers to the verb form such as written, sung and raised; ...
The teacher made an error.
Past perfect continuous is to describe actions in the past that continued into another point in the past; or a duration in the past.
It can be also used for something that caused a thing in the past (Maise eating sweets before supper made her not want supper), which is true in this case.
This should help you understand this ...
The usage of past perfect continuous indicates that the classes were before the exam. Past continuous would indicate that the exam occurred in the middle of the classes that she missed.
Past perfect continuous is probably the intended meaning.
"Betty failed the final test because she had not been attending class."
Regarding your edit:
The use of a past ...
Your interpretations of the sentences are mostly correct, except for this one:
When I last went to Moscow, they had been renovating St Basil's Cathedral.
To me, this means that when you last went to Moscow there had been renovations going on before you arrived, but they had also stopped before you arrived.
If someone had said this to me, I would have ...
Certainly. As with many choices of aspect in English, either is possible, and differs only in how the speaker wishes to refer to the events. The choice of watched implies that, for the purpose of the current discourse, the speaker is regarding the watching as a completed act. Were watching suggests that the speaker has the watching in mind as a continuing ...
It's not really correct, because "have been dealing" is the present perfect continuous (which is a present tense like the name says, talking about a present status!) but "until I stumbled" is talking about a past event.
More fluent would be the simple past "I was dealing with stress, anxiety, and depression until I stumbled upon (etc.)" or the past perfect ...
As is very often the case with tenses in English, both are possible, depending on how you are choosing to view the temporal structure of the events, rather than on an objective difference in the events.
If you use I was meeting, it suggests that you are choosing to view the meeting as a continuing process, probably because you are then going to relate ...
In OP's first version, he was happy at time of speaking (the time when he was telling people about being happy).
In the second version, he was telling them about having been happy at some earlier time.
Because the question is in Past Tense, the only correct choice (from those you gave) is
Did you think you had seen me somewhere before?
You can't use "were seeing" because it is continuous. You can't use "have seen" because that is Present tense.
Unfortunately, you're trying to decide between both wrong answers.
Did you think you had seen me somewhere before?
I don't know who taught you these rules that "have" is only used with "ever," "never," and "before," but that's incorrect. This isn't present perfect tense, so we shouldn't use "have" in this case.
"Were seeing" is not applicable because it ...
I never hear anyone who is a native speaker say "What did you doing?". They either say "What are you doing?" or "What did you do?". Perhaps you heard wrong, or they aren't native speakers.
"What did you doing?" is incorrect.
It is quite common for the progressive construction to be employed in order to "recategorize" a verb which ordinarily has one sort of aspect into a different aspect.
For instance, stative verbs are not ordinarily cast in the progressive, but may be if the speaker wants us to view the state expressed as subject to change over time:
I'm seeing more and ...
Well, both versions are valid English. The difference is in which part of the sentence is signaled to be main issue.
If the story is about eating sweets, use ate:
It was the day after Halloween, and Maise had made a huge haul. She'd come home with a pillowcase stuffed with practically her own weight in fun-size sweets bars. On All Saints Day, Maise ate ...
Technically, if you considered only that sentence, either choice would be possible (It was Friday, the first day of our skiing holiday, and my friend Jason and I had been/were skiing down the mountain together.) It's just that in the text, were skiing is more logical (or arguably, just easier to imagine).
In your exercise, the two were still skiing; they ...
No, they are not interchangeable.
Your first sentence does not specify or imply a termination of the event. Although everyone knows that the Nazis were indeed defeated, your sentence makes it... debatable. There's room for interpretation when you don't have a terminating statement.
The second sentence does indeed terminate. ...
"He was going for a morning walk every day" is an unlikely form. The "used to" pattern would be preferred for this meaning: "He used to go for a morning walk every day". Simple past is also possible "He went for a walk every day". Your suggestion of "He would go..." is also possible but is quite formal, perhaps even literary in style.
Past continuous is ...
Both of the sentences about babies are correct, but they mean slightly different things. The former (... was sleeping...) suggests that something happened (or could have happened) and caused a change in the baby's state. Example:
The baby was sleeping peacefully through the night until a thunderstorm woke her.
The latter sentence means that the baby did ...
Both sentences are grammatically correct but they imply different things. Because of this, one of them will be the better choice depending on the context. It is this match between hint and context that makes something feel natural.
In 1999, I lived in Cuba.
That's a declarative statement. The most important idea you're trying to convey is where you ...
Yes ... but it doesn't really make much of a difference. Either was living or lived suggests the situation was temporary. For example:
When I was swimming every day, I got pretty tan.
The context suggests that, since I stopped swimming, I'm no longer as tan as I was. The verb tense doesn't change the implied meaning.
Also, if possible it is good ...
The first three interpretations are correct. Since you've changed the original question, only the last one is wrong (restating the sentence at issue so that it makes sense):
Yesterday during lunch we'd had a bust-up.
This means that you had a bust-up during lunch. Without further context I don't see this as suggesting anything else.
Let me give ...
Your "didn't go north" example, as it stands, to me implies that your trip was completely cancelled. You were perhaps considering going north on that day, but the bad weather meant you didn't go north after all. With more context though you can change this meaning; for instance, "The weather was very bad, so we didn't go north that day, but the next day the ...