I'm not sure what other tense you might expect: it is an event which took place in the past and is complete.
If it were in a main clause, you could use the perfect and say The CIA assessment has finally emerged, if you wished to relate it to the present. (You could also use the simple past, if it was not important or relevant to relate it to the present),
"Was" is past tense and her uncle died before her being upset, so "had died" is the right tense. ( past before past)
If you use has died you'd have to say: "Is she upset, because her uncle has died recently?" but you could also use simple past: "her uncle died recently".
After you fix the grammar issue (you leave not you leaves), pretend "always" isn't there.
You're dealing with the noun before it.
These are correct phrases:
You can then put "always" before the verb:
You always leave
He/She always leaves
They always leave
You always left
I have a feeling that when what we are talking about is a general
idea, we use the present perfect to refer to the past event instead of
using simple past.
Is that the way to look at it?
No. That is incorrect. I will answer for British English. I'll choose to discuss example (2)
Students in class often listen to the teacher and write down what the teacher ...
For me the decision depends on how far in the past and for how long the action took place.
I would write "have said" in (1).
In (2) I prefer "said" or even "says".
In (3) I would choose "has happened". Just "happened" suggests that you are considering a single event when you are interested in understanding a ...
A lot depends here on the overall context in which the sentences are found so for some of them there are several possibilities.
She promised me that she (to ring up) me as soon as she (to return) from London.
Your suggestion is
She promised me that she would ring me up as soon as she returned from London.
That seems fine. It would not be wrong to say had ...
The first sentence makes sense. You were on your way to school and you met someone. Since you are using the objective pronoun him, it is clear that the listener already knows who you are referring to.
While I was going to school, I met him.
While I went to school, I met him.
The second sentence is a mess. It could mean that during the time that you ...
Generally, yes. However the first one is not that common. and many times this structure used with specific time periods, like "...this week" or "...this semester" to express things that we know or expect to absolutely happen in future.
As for second one it is better to end with "...lately" because it conveys the up to now sense ...
It's the use of the past for irrealis or counter-factual clauses. It's very much like
If someone looked you in the eyes and told it to you straight ...
So with the past, this is counter-factual, and implies "but nobody is going to do that". Contrast
If, when you get there, somebody looks you in the eyes and tells you straight ....
which is not ...
The only thing you can do is [to] eat it. to is optional.
No progressive, just the bare form of the verb.
Basically, after is you get the bare verb or to plus a bare verb.
Eating it is the only thing you can do. There eating is not a progressive, it is a gerund noun.
Although the to is left out, it is the clue to the grammatical form here of a ...
The phrase "are you wanting" is what is considered passive voice. "Do you want," is active voice. You will often see writing texts say not to use passive voice, but it gets used anyway.
The meaning of the two phrases is not the same, but if you were using them alone, "Do you want" would be the least likely to cause your grammar ...
Both are correct, but they have different meanings.
"My grandmother returned home" merely means that she returned in the past.
"My grandmother has returned home" means she returned in particular reference to the present.
"My grandmother had returned home" means that at some point in the past, she had returned in that past of ...
As I don't have the time to expand on this, I made it into a community wiki post.
“If I were as hungry now as my friend, I would eat the same burger that he would [eat]”
This makes it clear that the speaker's friend is not currently eating anything at the moment.
It's not necessary to backshift the tense of something that's inside a relative clause.
If I were as hungry as my friend now, I would get the burger [that] he ate.
Remember that you are talking about a hypothetical situation, so it's not normal to specify when... the word now is therefore confusing. The sentence as it stands can only relate to the burger ...
Past perfect would have been possible but not required. You tend to use past perfect when there is an established narrative at a particular time and then you describe an event that occurred before that time. There is no narrative here. There is just a phrase which describes a past time, and a past tense clause. That is consistent and correct.
Morphologically, "would" is past tense (and grammatically, it serves as the past tense of "will"). In practice, it is used as though it were both present tense and past tense:
PRESENT: I would like a cup of tea.
PAST: I said that I would like a cup of tea. (Cf I said that I wanted...)
PAST: I wondered whether he would like a cup of tea. ...
What part of speech is booked in the example? It is an adjective, not a verb. The word booked could be the simple past tense of to book, but here it is not.
Booked as a verb:
I booked a flight to Mexico City last night.
The chicken is cooked.
The flight is booked.
This seat is taken.
This is present tense. There is an adjective "booked", and "Harold is booked". His name is on the list of passengers for that flight.
The adjective "booked" is based off of the past (or passive) participle, and the usage of the adjective is somewhat idiomatic. You would not normally say "Harold is a booked man" (...
These sentences have almost the same meaning:
"I am learning Russian in Moscow."
"I am studying Russian in Moscow."
But these sentences are quite different:
"I studied English in London." (Perhaps the speaker learned very
"I learned English in London." (--Oh, really? Perhaps I should shut
According to Merriam-Webster:
to gain knowledge or understanding of, or skill in, by study, instruction, or experience
To explore your sample sentence:
I learn English every day
could be a contracted version of
I listen to people talk to each other all day long, and I'm often able to identify new words and language constructs, that I will ...
This is as if you had asked "can you speak English without using the word 'dog'?" It's possible, but eventually you will want to refer to a canine pet and then you are stuck.
Roughly 5% of verbs in English texts have their perfect form. So this is not a rare or obscure part of grammar. In many cases it might be possible to rephrase with past ...
It is the past continuous tense. Here it is used for placing a short action, "when I got back," into a longer background action, "...the parking inspector was sticking this on my windshield."
From a book on English grammar that I have written:
For interrupted action in the past, the quick action that
interrupted the more prolonged ...
Either "means" or "meant" is acceptable.
If you were being really fussy, you might say
You should read Keynes's book "The Theory of Money" and see what it means
The intended meaning of a book's text does not change over time, and so its intended meaning is now what it ever was. Or you might say
"You should read Keynes's ...