THE USE OF A WRONG TENSE 01

Dialog

Alright, listen up. We're going through some common mistakes. Try not to mess it up too much. First one: is "Did you went to school yesterday?" a correct sentence?

(A bit nervous) Uh, I think... no? It sounds a bit off, doesn't it?

(Proudly, but trying to sound stern) Exactly! And why, pray tell, is it not correct?

Because "did" already makes it past tense, so you don't need "went". It should be "go". "Did you go."

(A small, approving nod, quickly hidden) Not bad for you, I suppose. Just remember that when you use "did" to ask a question or make a negative statement, the main verb always goes back to its base form. Don't go making silly mistakes like that, you hear?

Next. Is "Does the gardener water the flowers?" correct?

Yes, it is.

(Crossing her arms) And why is that, Mr. Know-It-All?

Because "does" is already in the third person singular, so "water" stays as it is, not "waters".

(A faint smile plays on her lips) Hmph. You're actually paying attention. Good. Keep it up and you might learn something useful. The rule is, after the auxiliary "does", the verb always stays in its base form, without the "s". Simple as that.

Listen to this: "He can speaks English very well." Is that right?

Oh, no, that sounds definitely wrong. It should be "speak".

(A little softer than before) Why? Tell me the rule properly.

Uh, because "can" is a modal verb, and after modal verbs like "can" or "must", you always use the base form of the verb.

(Beaming, then catching herself) Exactly! You do sometimes listen. You can't just slap an "s" on the end of a verb when it's after "can" or "must" or "should". It's the base form, always. Remember that, you.

Okay, "He asked me what I am doing." Is that a proper sentence?

(Hesitates, then firms up) I think it should be "was doing".

You think, or you know? Explain it.

Well, "asked" is past tense. So the part about what you're doing also needs to be past, like "was doing". The tenses need to match.

(A brief, knowing look) You're not completely hopeless, are you? When the main verb, like "asked", is in the past, then the verb in the clause it introduces usually needs to be in a past tense too. It's about matching the time, you see? Don't forget it.

What about this? "He said that he will come tomorrow." Right or wrong?

Wrong. It should be "would".

Why "would" and not "will"?

Because "said" is past tense, so "will" changes to "would" in the reported speech.

(A hint of approval in her voice) You've actually got that one spot on. When you're reporting what someone said in the past, if they used "will", it changes to "would". It's called sequence of tenses, and you really should know this stuff.

Try this. "He told me that he may come today." Is that acceptable?

No. "Told" is past, so "may" needs to be "might".

(A slight challenge in her voice) And why does "may" turn into "might"? Is it magic?

It's like "will" and "would". When the main verb, "told", is in the past, you change "may" to its past form, "might", in the reported part.

(A subtle softening of her expression) Well, look at you, remembering previous lessons. That's a good sign, I guess. Yes, it's the same rule as "will" and "would". You just have to change "may" to "might" when the main verb is in the past. It's not rocket science, but you still manage to mess up simpler things sometimes.

Here's another one: "He thought he can win the prize." What do you say to that?

(Confidently) Wrong. It should be "could".

(Trying to catch him out) Oh? And why "could" this time?

Because "thought" is in the past, so "can" has to change to "could" to match the tense.

(A small, almost imperceptible smile) You're getting the hang of this. It's just like "will" to "would" and "may" to "might". "Can" becomes "could" when the main verb is past tense. See? It's not that hard when you actually try.

"He tried to kicked the ball away." Is that how you'd say it?

Definitely not. "To kick", not "to kicked".

(Arching an eyebrow) And why is that so obvious to you?

Because after "to", when it's part of an infinitive, you always use the base form of the verb, not the past tense.

(A nod of approval) Precisely. The "to" makes it an infinitive, and infinitives are always the base form of the verb. No "ed" or "s" or anything else. Just the plain verb. Try not to forget that one, it's a basic.

Listen: "I have forgot to bring my book." Is that perfectly correct?

No, it should be "forgotten".

Explain it clearly, now. Why "forgotten"?

Because after "have", you need the past participle, not the simple past tense. "Forgot" is simple past, "forgotten" is the past participle.

(Tsundere) For once, you're not making me explain everything from scratch. Good. Remember that "have" needs the past participle, not just the past tense. It's a common mistake, so don't make it. Especially not when I'm listening.

What about this one? "You ought to come yesterday." Correct?

(Frowns thoughtfully) Hmm, no. "Ought to come" sounds present. For yesterday, it should be "ought to have come" or "should have come".

(Encouragingly) Go on, why?

Because "ought to" and "must" don't have past forms on their own for past obligations. You need to use "have" with the past participle, or something like "had to" for a past necessity.

(A smirk) You're thinking. That's a good sign for you. Yes, you can't just use "ought to" or "must" for something that happened in the past. You have to add "have" and the past participle if it's about a missed obligation, or just use "had to" if it was a past necessity. Keep that straight, it's important.

"I have seen a good film yesterday." Is that right?

No, it's "I saw a good film yesterday."

(Prodding him) And the reason?

Because "yesterday" gives a specific time in the past. When you have a specific time, you use the simple past, not the present perfect.

(A nod) Exactly! If you say exactly when it happened – "yesterday", "last week", "in 2010" – then you use the simple past. The present perfect is for actions that started in the past but have a connection to now, or without a specific past time. This is a common mistake, so pay attention.

Okay, imagine you're talking about a trip. You say, "I saw the Parthenon of Athens." Is that correct?

(Hesitates) Uh, I think... yes? You saw it in the past.

(Fiery) Wrong! Not entirely. If you're talking about the experience and the result now, you should use the present perfect.

Oh. So like, "I have seen the Parthenon of Athens" because it means I know what it looks like, and that experience is still with me?

(Tsundere) You got there eventually. When you're talking about a past action where the result or experience is important right now, and you're not specifying when you saw it, then it's the present perfect. "I have seen it" implies you've had the experience. If you said "I saw it last year," then that's fine. It's subtle, but important.

Alright, the clock just finished making a noise. Do you say, "The clock struck"?

No. You say, "The clock has struck."

(Testing him) And why the change?

Because it's an action that just finished, very recently. For things that just happened, we use the present perfect.

(A satisfied expression) Good. When something has just, and I mean just, happened, you use the present perfect. It connects the action directly to the present moment. Don't go using the simple past for things that are practically still happening.

"I am in this school two years." Is that a proper sentence?

No, it sounds wrong. It should be "I have been in this school for two years."

(Impressed, but trying not to show it) Why for "two years" and not just "two years"? And why "have been"?

You need "have been" because the action started in the past – two years ago – and it's still continuing now. And "for" is used to say how long.

(Tsundere) You actually remembered the "for" part too. Not bad. Yes, for an action or state that started in the past and is still going on, you use the present perfect, not the simple present. And often with "for" or "since". Don't mess that up, it's a common one.

Try this. "Since he came, we are happy." What do you think?

No, it should be "we have been happy."

(Curious) Why? What's special about "since"?

"Since he came" tells you when something started. If it started then and is still true now, you use the present perfect for the second part of the sentence.

(A smirk) You're connecting the dots, I see. When you have a "since" clause to show when something began, the main clause usually needs the present perfect because the situation continues up to now. Keep paying attention like that, and you might actually get somewhere.

Look out the window! "Two boys fight." Is that what you say?

No! You'd say, "Look! Two boys are fighting!"

(Exaggerated sigh) Why? Are they not fighting in the present?

Yes, but it's happening right now. For actions happening at the moment of speaking, you use the present continuous.

(Tsundere) Finally, something you got quickly. Yes, if it's happening right this second, you need the "ing" form with "are" or "is". It's not that complicated, you just need to think.

Okay, last one. "I am understanding the lesson now." Is that correct?

(Hesitantly) I think... no. It should be "I understand the lesson now."

(Puzzled, but she wants him to explain) Why? It's happening now, isn't it?

Some verbs, like "understand", "know", "like", they don't usually go into the continuous form. They describe a state, not an action that's ongoing.

(Tsundere, a tiny bit proud) Exactly! You actually remembered that tricky rule. Some verbs, called state verbs, don't use the continuous form, even if they refer to something happening now. "Understand" is one of them. Good job. Maybe you're not completely useless after all.

Summary

• 105. Using the infinitive without "to" after "did" in questions and negations.
• 106. Using the infinitive without "to" after "does" in questions and negations.
• 107. Using the infinitive without "to" after "can," "must," etc.
• 108. Using a past tense in subordinate clauses when the principal clause verb is in the past tense.
• 109. Using "would" instead of "will" in subordinate clauses when the principal clause verb is in the past tense.
• 110. Using "might" instead of "may" in subordinate clauses when the principal clause verb is in the past tense.
• 111. Using "could" instead of "can" in subordinate clauses when the principal clause verb is in the past tense.
• 112. Using the base form of the verb after the infinitive sign "to".
• 113. Using the past participle (not the past tense) with the auxiliary verb "have".
• 114. Expressing past obligation with "ought to have" + past participle, "should have" + past participle, or "had to".
• 115. Using the past tense for an action completed in the past at a stated time.
• 116. Using the present perfect for the result of a past action rather than the action itself (without a specific past time).
• 117. Using the present perfect for an action just finished.
• 118. Using the present perfect for an action begun in the past and continuing into the present.
• 119. Using the present perfect in the main clause after a "since" clause of time.
• 120. Using the present continuous for an action going on at the time of speaking.
• 121. Not using continuous forms for verbs denoting a state rather than an act (state verbs).

Reference: T. J. FITIKIDES, "COMMON MISTAKES IN ENGLISH" p20 - p23