Your sentence has taught me something new! Apparently, in British English people "have a shower", whereas in American English (which is what I speak) people "take a shower" (as also explained in the Oxford Learners' Dictionary). I'm glad I checked before suggesting that you should use "take a shower".
Your use of the past perfect for the verb "work" is ...
These "imaginary scenes" sound like blurbs publishers post inside dust jackets on books and elsewhere. Example 1 is fine except for this one sentence:
Two days ago, they once met at a library.
I think you mean: They met once at a library.
"They once met..." gives the impression that at some point in the past they met. "They met once..." gives the ...
Why? Notice the earlier word did. The sentence is constructed in the past tense. Since the most recent event in the sentence was Marissa getting home, and we are writing in the past tense, we use got.
Since we know that she forgot her keys before arriving at her home, we need to make that clear by using the perfect past. Now we have our answer.
I am a native speaker, so my grammar might not be exactly right, but this is what these sentences mean to me.
1 is the present continuous - the present it refers to is 'this year', as opposed to last year. It says that the company at present is losing money.
2 is present perfect continuous and it refers to the state of the company in the recent past. The ...
There are a few things that need to be mentioned here.
First of all, the tense doesn't depend on whether you're referring to a specific person/entity or a "non-specific" person/entity. The only difference is that the verb would inflect (i.e. "you eat" would become "he eats"). For example:
If I turn on the lights, I will waste electricity.
If you ...
As it turns out your assuptions were true, as has been evidenced by her conviction for murder last week.
is correct. Alternatively, "was" can also be used:
As it turns out your assuptions were true, as was evidenced by her conviction for murder last week.
Or, still better, we could use a reduced participial clause:
As it turns out your ...
Yes, it is grammatically correct and makes sense.
I would remove the last I since it is obvious you are talking about yourself from the rest of the sentence, in this way it sounds more natural:
I was having a shower at 7pm yesterday, because I had worked very hard, and got very dirty.
[Have you ever] or [would you ever] fall in love with someone you met
on the internet?
Strictly speaking this is unacceptable because "fall in love ..." cannot satisfy the complement requirements of both bracketed coordinates.
"Have you ever" requires a past participle complement ("Have you ever fallen in love ...?"), whereas "would you ever" requires an ...
Considering the grammatical timeline set by the main verb (past tense), the choice of “would” could be better, due to the corresponding verb tense agreement. Besides, “I wrote down what my girlfriend would say” could mean talking about the future in the past, and the usage of the word “would” seems more appropriate.
(Yesterday) I wrote down what she will say (tomorrow).
There is a misconception sometimes expressed here that subordinate clauses in a sentence must have the same tense as the main clause. This is often the case, but it is not a grammatical rule, just that, usually the time referred to in the subordinate clause is the same as in the main clause.
But there ...
You can't command yourself to do something. You can merely state an intention, as in we shall do it.
It's most unusual to begin a command with you. Rather than You don't open the door we would generally just say Don't open the door. The you is understood. It's possible to construct a scene in which three or more people are involved. A teacher might ...
Yes. They're equally natural. Have you told him treats the telling as an act which continues to have relevance to now, did you tell him treats it as a completed act. Both forms are available in most cases.
Tense depends on the time of the action of the verb, NOT on whether the subject is specific or non-specific.
Subject : You (specific) :
Zero conditional : If you have an unhappy childhood, you are more protective of your kids.
Conditional type 1 : If you have an unhappy childhood, you will be more protective of your kids.
Conditional type 2 : ...
Examples 1 and 3 are both acceptable. Example 2 is incorrect. You could change it to "I've forgotten to add them, so I'll add them today."
Personally, I find that when I'm trying to work out tenses, it's easier if I don't use contractions.
When I have look at both of your sentences, I cannot see to it that there is much difference in meaning between them. Nonetheless, let's point out some grammatical rules:
1) My sister often gets annoyed with her husband since he is always/constantly
winding the children up.
2) My sister often gets annoyed with her husband since he will [always - ...
The correct answer is "There is no single correct answer that can be supported by an English grammar rule."
I think the answer given by Micah Windsor and the comments that follow fail to address the central problem, and the one that Alex Raw seems to be concerned about, though he might have made it more explicit: what grammatical rule will allow you to ...
No, it's got, because he is asking about something where he had already gotten there (got there, British English). How can I know before I get there? would be used in speaking at a present time.
The entire incident refers to a past event. You can have is in the final clause, that doesn't change anything.
"whether or not the world in 2116 is a radioactive ...
The present perfect works here. "Present" tenses can often be used in "non-past" situations, and we are talking about the state at a non-past time.
You could also use simple present: "I'll tell you if the situation changes". This slightly changes the meaning. The present perfect suggests that "I'll tell you about the situation and whether it has changed ...
Perhaps he said I had to make a bomb because he changed his mind and now he doesn't consider it necassary to make it or the situation changed somehow where he isn't required to make a bomb anymore. Or perhaps he needed to make a bomb at a particalar time in the past, but he didn't manage to make it. As you can see it's hard to say what he meant by that ...
They are all grammatically correct, and all convey the same general meaning.
It seems that you are looking for a counterfactual situation, and this can be expressed with the perfect conditional: "would have".
We generally backshift the condition to past perfect in this case.
Break is verb that can is "ergative" so we can say "my hand broke", or "I broke ...
These sentences all seem correct, but they do not all have the same meaning. Let's go through them one by one.
I lived in Tehran from 1950-1960.
This seems pretty self-explanatory. You lived in Tehran. You lived in Tehran for the years you indicated. If the year is 1961, you aren't in Tehran anymore, unless you indicate it again.
I've lived in Tehran ...
By itself, 2. means that you had stopped playing football when Ali came to join you (doing something else). But note that the same tense could also make 'I had been been playing football for 10 minutes when Ali came to join me', which means you were still playing football when he joined you.
I was having a shower at 7pm yesterday, because I had worked very hard, and I got very dirty.
It is incorrect.
... because I had worked very hard, past perfect and I got very dirty.simple past
You should use the past perfect of "to get", which is "had gotten" in AmE and "had got" in BrE. Don't confuse this with "have got" that is used in the sense of ...