Level: intermediate
Past events and situations
We use the past simple to talk about:
- something that happened once in the past:
The film started at seven thirty.
We arrived home before dark.
- something that was true for some time in the past:
Everybody worked hard through the winter.
We stayed with our friends in London.
When we talk about something that happened several times in the past, we use the past simple:
Most evenings, we stayed at home and watched DVDs.
Sometimes they went out for a meal.
or used to:
Most evenings, we used to stay at home and watch DVDs.
We used to go for a swim every morning.
or would:
Most evenings, he would take the dog for a walk.
They would often visit friends in Europe.
We do not normally use would with stative verbs. We use the past simple or used to instead:
He
wouldlooked much older than he does now. (NOTwould look)
Wewouldused to feel very cold in winter. (NOTwould feel)
- Past simple, used to and would 1
- Past simple, used to and would 2
We use the past continuous:
- for something that happened before and after a specific time in the past:
It was just after ten. I was watching the news on TV.
At half-time we were losing 1–0.
- for something that happened before and after another action in the past:
He broke his leg when he was playing rugby.
She saw Jim as he was driving away.
- Past simple and past continuous 1
- Past simple and past continuous 2
The past in the past
We use the past perfect when we are looking back from a point in the past to something earlier in the past:
Helen suddenly remembered she had left her keys in the car.
When we had done all our shopping, we caught the bus home.
They wanted to buy a new computer, but they hadn't saved enough money.
They would have bought a new computer if they had saved enough money.
- Past simple, continuous and perfect 1
- Past simple, continuous and perfect 2
The past and the present
We use the present perfect:
- for something that started in the past and continues in the present:
We have lived here since 2017. [and we still live here]
I have been working at the university for over ten years.
- for something that happened in the past but is important in the present:
I can't open the door. I've left my keys in the car.
Jenny has found a new job. She works in a supermarket now.
| Be careful! | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
We do not use the present perfect with adverbials which refer to a finished past time:
but we can use the present perfect with adverbials which refer to a time which is not yet finished:
|
- Present perfect and past simple 1
- Present perfect and past simple 2
The future in the past
When we talk about the future from a time in the past we use:
- would as the past tense of will:
He thought he would buy one the next day.
Everyone was excited. The party would be fun.
- was/were going to:
John was going to drive and Mary was going to follow on her bicycle.
It was Friday. We were going to set off the next day.
- the past continuous:
It was September. Mary was starting school the next week.
We were very busy. Our guests were arriving soon and we had to get their room ready.
The past with modal verbs
could is the past tense of can:
You could get a good meal for a pound when I was a boy.
would is the past tense of will:
He said he would come but he forgot.
We use may have, might have and could have to show that something has possibly happened in the past:
I'll telephone him. He might have got home early.
She's very late. She could have missed her train.
We use should have as the past form of should:
I didn't know he was ill. He should have told me.
You shouldn't have spent so much money.
We use would have and could have to talk about something that was possible in the past but did not happen:
I could have gone to Mexico for my holiday but it was too expensive.
I would have called you, but I had forgotten my phone.
They would have gone out if the weather had been better.
Hi jitu_jaga,
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the history of this use of 'would' to be able to say anything about that.
'used to' means that the action is no longer performed; 'would' doesn't state this explicitly, but puts the focus on the past in a way that suggests it. The past simple is probably the most general of the three, as it has many other uses and without context it could mean any of them.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi manuel24,
There is no present perfect form in these verses. Instead, there is 'could' + 'have been' and 'should' + 'have been'. This grammar is explained in some detail on our Modals with 'have' page, but basically it sounds like the idea is that there was the possibility of love and the singer wishes that love had flowered.
I hope this helps, but if you have further questions please don't hesitate to ask.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello jitu_jaga,
The second sentence is an informal form which I would say is non-standard. It is used primarily in slang and certain dialects and it has the meaning of 'I had finished'. A similar form which you can sometimes find, which is also non-standard, is 'I was done + verbing' (I was done talking to him), and this also has the meaning of 'I had finished'.
In terms of form, these look like passive constructions. However, as I said above, they do not have a passive meaning and are rather very informal non-standard/dialectical forms.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello jitu_jaga,
A lot of the language in films is non-standard. 'I am gone mad' is a good example of this; if you want to speak informally in certain situations, it might be appropriate, but in most I wouldn't recommend imitating it.
'I am done' is different and is a standard, though informal, form. It means 'I have finished it' or 'it is finished'. See the Cambridge Dictionary entry for 'done' for more on this.
Best wishes,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello jitu_jaga,
This is really the same question as the one below. Please see my answer there.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi jitu_jaga,
As far as the fairy tale example goes, I would say that this is a fixed expression and not an example of a grammatical rule.
We use continuous forms to show an ongoing activity which is unfinished, temporary or interrupted, and this is key to your examples.
When I was a child I lived in Italy... tells us that Italy was your home.
When I was a child I was living in Italy... tells us that your time in Italy was temporary and that you did not see it as your home, but only a place you spent some time in.
The difference here is psychological rather than factual. Let's say a British person moves to France and remains there for 30 years. They can describe their situation as I live in France or I'm living in France. Both are correct. The first tells us that the person sees France as their permanent home. The second tells us that they see it as temporary, even after 30 years, and expect one day to leave.
Your other example show interrupted time:
While I was living in Poland I met a beautiful girl
The continuous form makes it clear that the meeting happened during the time of the other activity (living in Poland). In this context there is little chance of confusion, but in other contexts it may not be clear. For example:
When I spoke to him, he got angry.
While I was speaking to him, he got angry.
The first sentence suggests that the act of speaking to him made him angry. The second sentence suggests that he was not angry when I started speaking to him but became angry during the conversation.
I hope that helps to clarify it for you.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi uchiha itache,
What's the context for this sentence? It sounds as if it means that they did arrive in London, but it would probably be easier to explain this in reference to the context.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello manuel24,
All of those sentences are correct. I don't think there is a difference in meaning between the first two sentences, and I think they are used interchangeably by most speakers. You could also use 'It's a long time since...' in each sentence. Again, the meaning does not change.
In the second pair of sentences the difference is subtle and more one of emphasis and context than anything else. I think the second sentence is more likely to be used when the person is in the middle of the conversation. In other words, while the person is speaking, they would say 'I haven't been speaking...' whereas 'I haven't spoken...' would be more likely before or after the conversation. However, as I said these are very subtle distinctions and certainly not fixed rules of any kind. You would be fine using the two forms interchangeably, I would say.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello manuel24,
We often use since to refer back to a finished time in the past:
In a way, the past form here is the more normal form. The past form (since I spoke) describes a finished time in the past, just like the examples above. The present perfect form (since I have spoken) is a rather odd construction which people use but which is conceptually rather strange. It has a sense of it's been a long time since I have been a person who has the experience of speaking Italian, I suppose. However, both are used in modern English and both are correct.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello manuel24,
Yes, both sentences tell us that the person has not spoken Italian for a long time. That's correct, and that's what I explained in my earlier answer. The difference between them is quite subtle, as I said, and they are used interchangeably in most contexts. I don't know what you mean by 'negative sentences', however.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello manuel24,
Not necessarily. To know this we would need to know the context in which the sentence is used. The speaker could be trying to speak Italian and say this as an explanation of why they are not very fluent: I'm sorry! It's been a long time since I have spoken Italian!
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello manuel24,
The context in my previous answer (a person having trouble speaking Italian and trying to explain this) is fine. As I said, the two forms can be used interchangeably.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello JHRoss,
Both the simple and continuous forms are possible here and there is little difference in meaning. The continuous form emphasises the ongoing duration of the action, while the simple form emphasises the action as a whole. We would tend to use the simple form if we are interested in the result of the action or the achievement it represents, or if the action is complete, while the continuous would usually be used when we want to focus on the duration of the activity, the effort it entails or if the activity is not finished.
You can read more about the present perfect simple and continuous on this page.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello toandue,
It's certainly grammatically possible to use both 'would' and 'used to + infinitive' here. The past continuous or past simple form sounds a little more natural to me, particularly if you use 'always' in the sentence. I suppose this is because it would be a little redundant with 'would' or 'used to', though not grammatically incorrect.
Best wishes,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Elton Cesar da Silva,
You can read about this and see examples of these structures' uses on this page:
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/b1-b2-grammar/past-habits-used-to-would-and-the-past-simple
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Raghad,
This depends on how 'once' is used.
'Once' can mean 'one time' and with this meaning it can be used with the past simple (when the time is defined) or the present perfect (when the time is not defined and is unfinished:
'Once' can also mean 'some time ago' and with this meaning it is used with the past simple.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello learning,
The sentence describes a state which was true in the past and continued up to another point in the past, when it stopped being true. For this we use the past perfect and the past simple.
You would use the past simple if the time described was finished. In other words, you would use the past simple if (a) the situation did not change and (b) the period of time (the life) was complete. Thus we would use this to talk in a historical sense about someone who is no longer alive:
If the person is still alive, we use a present perfect to show an unfinished time up to the moment of speaking:
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello learning,
Yes, that is correct.
The phrase quite so extraordinary is less common in modern English than quite as extraordinary, but both are correct.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi learning,
All four of these sentences could be correct. Which one is best depends on the context in which it is used. I'm afraid it would take me quite a long time to explain all of the different possibilities, so please look at our pages in this section for each of these verb forms (present perfect, past perfect, present simple and past simple), where you can see the different meanings they can have. If you have a specific question about a specific form in a specific context, please don't hesitate to ask us, but we generally just don't answer long questions. We simply don't have the time, I'm afraid!
Also, please do not post the same question twice in the future. We hadn't answered your question yet because we aren't normally able to answer more than one question from the same person on any given day.
Best wishes,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello SahilK,
The present tense is used in informal speech when we are trying to make an anecdote or a joke more lively and more immediate. Your example is a good one for this: the speaker is clearly telling a personal anecdote (which might be funny or surprising) to an audience.
We also use present forms in this way when we are summarising the plot of a film or book.
You can read more about this use of present forms on this page.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team