This article contains IPA phonetic symbols. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Unicode characters. English grammar series English grammar Contraction Disputes in English grammar English compound English honorifics English personal pronouns English plural English relative clauses English verbs English conjugation tables English irregular verbs English modal verb Gender in English This box: view · talk · Verbs in the English language are a part of speech and typically describe an action, an event, or a state. While English has many irregular verbs (see a list), for the regular ones the conjugation rules are quite straightforward. Being partially analytic, English regular verbs are not strongly inflected; all tenses, aspects and moods except the simple present and the simple past are periphrastic, formed with auxiliary verbs and modals. Contents 1 Forms 1.1 Bare form 1.2 Third person singular 1.2.1 Formation 1.2.2 Usage 1.2.3 Exception 1.3 Preterite form 1.3.1 Formation of regular preterite 1.3.2 Irregular preterite 1.4 Past participle 1.4.1 Formation 1.4.2 Uses 1.5 Present participle 1.5.1 Formation 1.5.2 Uses 1.5.2.1 Basic Use 1.5.2.2 Gerund 1.5.2.3 Note on possessives and personal pronouns used with the -ing form 1.5.2.4 Verbal Nouns 1.6 History 2 Syntax 2.1 Overview of syntactic constructions 2.2 Simple constructions 2.2.1 Simple present 2.2.2 Simple past 2.2.3 Simple future 2.3 Progressive constructions 2.3.1 Present progressive 2.3.2 Past progressive 2.3.3 Future progressive 2.4 Perfect constructions 2.4.1 Present perfect 2.4.2 Past perfect 2.4.3 Future perfect 2.5 Perfect progressive constructions 2.5.1 Present perfect progressive 2.5.2 Past perfect progressive 2.5.3 Future perfect progressive 2.6 Conditional present 2.7 Conditional present progressive 2.8 Conditional perfect 2.9 Conditional perfect progressive 2.10 Present subjunctive 2.11 Imperfect subjunctive 2.12 Future subjunctive 2.13 Modal constructions 3 See also 4 Notes 5 References 6 External links Forms A regular English verb has only one principal part, from which all the forms of the verb can be derived. This is the bare form, and is shown in dictionaries. All other forms of a regular verb can be derived straightforwardly from this, for a total of four forms. For example, the bare form "exist" produces the forms exist, exists (third person singular present), existed (past tense (preterite) and past participle), existing (present participle). Each of these can be used in a variety of grammatical contexts. Another class of verbs, strong verbs, have three principal parts. For example:   Part Example 1 infinitive write 2 preterite wrote 3 past participle written This gives a total of five forms (write, writes, wrote, written, writing). Some irregular weak verbs have two principal parts (e.g., send (infinitive), sent (preterite and past participle)). Additionally, the verbs do, say, and have have irregular forms in the present tense third-person singular (although the first two are only irregular in speech): do /du:/ becomes does /dʌz/; say /seɪ/ becomes says /sɛz/; have /hæv/ becomes has /hæz/). The highly irregular copular verb to be has eight forms: be (infinitive), am (first person singular present), is (third person singular present), are (in second person singular and all persons plural, present), being (present participle), was (first and third persons singular preterite), were (preterite in second person singular and all persons plural), and been (past participle) (in addition to the archaic forms art, wast, wert, and beest), of which only one is derivable from a principal part (being is derived from be). Bare form The following are uses of the bare form: As the present tense for all persons and numbers other than the third person singular The infinitive, in English, is one of three verbal nouns: To write is to learn also "writing is learning" The infinitive, either marked with to or unmarked, is used as the complement of many auxiliary verbs: I shall/will write a novel about talking beavers; I am really going to write it. The basic form also forms the English imperative mood: Write these words. The basic form makes the English subjunctive mood: I suggested that he write a novel about talking beavers. Third person singular Formation The third person singular in regular verbs in English is distinguished by the suffix -s. In English spelling, this -s is added to the stem of the infinitive form: run → runs. If the base ends in one of the sibilant sounds: /s/, /z/, /ʃ/, /ʒ/, /tʃ/, /dʒ/ and its spelling does not end in a silent E, the suffix is written -es: buzz → buzzes; catch → catches. If the base ends in a consonant plus y, the y changes to an i and -es is affixed to the end: cry → cries. Verbs ending in o typically add -es: veto → vetoes. Regardless of spelling, the pronunciation of the third person singular ending in most dialects follows regular rules: pronounced /ɨz/ after sibilants /s/ after voiceless consonants other than sibilants. /z/ otherwise

The third person singular present indicative in English is notable cross-linguistically for being a morphologically marked form for a semantically unmarked one. That is to say, the third person singular is usually taken to be the most basic form in a given verbal category and as such, according to markedness theory, should have the simplest of forms in its paradigm. This is clearly not the case with English where the other persons exhibit the bare root and nothing more. In Early Modern English, some dialects distinguished the third person singular with the suffix -th; after consonants this was written -eth, and some consonants were doubled when this was added: run → runneth. Usage The third person singular is used exclusively in the third person form of the English simple "present tense", which often has other uses besides the simple present: He writes airport novels about anthropomorphic rodents. Exception English preserves a number of preterite-present verbs, such as can and may. These verbs lack a separate form for the third person singular: she can, she may. All surviving preterite-present verbs in modern English are auxiliary verbs. The verb will, although historically not a preterite-present verb, is uninflected like one when used as an auxiliary; by a process of levelling it has become regular when it is a full verb: Whatever she wills to happen will make life annoying for everyone else. Preterite form The preterite form is used in all persons and numbers as the finite verb in a clause, typically to talk about the past. We lit the fire. You ate the bread. He liked to dance. It can also be used in a dependent clause to indicate that a present-time situation is hypothetical: If I knew that, I wouldn't have to ask. Formation of regular preterite In spelling, the regular preterite is formed by adding ed to the bare form (play → played), except that if the bare form ends in the letter e then only d is added (like → liked). In speech, three situations are distinguished: If the bare form ends in /t/ or /d/, a new syllable /əd/ is added: drift /drɪft/ → /'drɪftəd/; exceed /ɛk'si:d/ → exceeded → /ɛk'si:dəd/. If the bare form ends in an unvoiced consonant sound other than /t/, the phoneme /t/ is added: cap /kæp/ → capped /kæpt/; pass /pæs/ → passed /pæst/. If the bare form ends in a vowel sound or a voiced consonant sound other than /d/, the phoneme /d/ is added: buzz /bʌz/ → buzzed /bʌzd/; tango /'tæŋgoʊ/ → tangoed /'tæŋgoʊd/. Irregular preterite Main article: List of English irregular verbs Past participle Formation In regular weak verbs, the past participle is always the same as the preterite. Irregular verbs may have separate preterites and past participles; see List of English irregular verbs. Uses The past participle is used with the auxiliary have for the English perfect constructions: They have written about the slap of tails on water, about the scent of the lodge... (With verbs of motion, an archaic form with be may be found in older texts: he is come.) With be, it forms the passive voice: It is written so well, you can feel what it is like to gnaw down trees! It is used as an adjective: the written word; a broken dam. Present participle Formation The present participle is formed by adding the suffix -ing to the base form: go → going. The ending in most dialects is pronounced /ɪŋ/, and the pronunciation of the root does not change. If the base ends in silent e, the e is dropped: believe → believing. If the e is not silent, the e is retained: agree → agreeing. If the base ends in -ie, the ie is changed to y: lie → lying. If: the base form ends in a single consonant; and a single vowel precedes that consonant; and the last syllable of the base form is stressed then the final consonant is doubled before adding the suffix: set → setting; occur → occurring. In British English, as an exception, the final <l> is subject to doubling even when the last syllable is not stressed: yodel → yodelling, travel → travelling; in American English, these follow the rule: yodeling, traveling. Irregular forms include: singeing, where the e is (sometimes) not dropped to avoid confusion with singing; ageing, in British English, where the expected form aging is ambiguous as to whether it has a hard or soft g; words ending in -c, which add k before the -ing, for example, trafficking, panicking, frolicking, and bivouacking. a number of words that are subject to the doubling rule even though they do not fall squarely within its terms, such as diagramming, kidnapping, and worshipping. Uses Basic Use The present participle is used to form a past, present or future tense with progressive or imperfective aspect: He is writing another long book about beavers. It is used with quasi-auxiliaries to form verb phrases: He tried writing about opossums instead, but his muse deserted him. It is modified by an adverb: He is writing quickly. It can be used as an adjective: It is a thrilling book. In this use, it can govern a personal pronoun: Her thrilling novel. NB: Other words also end in -ing, notably certain nouns formed from verbs (verbal nouns) and the gerund. These are usually considered different entities. However, since there is a lack of consensus for this view, these are considered here. Gerund

The English gerund is that form of a verb that acts as a noun but retains its identity as a verb. Since it has different properties from the Verbal noun in -ing (below) these two forms are usually, but not always, considered to be separate entities. The gerund has indeed been dubbed a Nounal verb to help distinguish these two uses of the -ing form, but this term is not normal. The gerund is formed by adding -ing to the base form in the same manner as the present participle; pronunciation is also identical to that of the present participle. The gerund can often be distinguished from the present participle by inserting the words the act of before it, (though this is true of the verbal noun, too): I enjoy [the act of] drinking wine. The gerund acts as a noun by standing at the head of a noun phrase: ...drinking wine (in the above context). It can stand alone in this role: I enjoy drinking. The gerund remains a verb because it is modified by an adverb not by an adjective: I enjoy drinking wine slowly. [Not: ...drinking wine slow. The gerund is typically modified by a possessive determiner or a noun in possessive case I do not like your/Jim's drinking wine, though it is also frequently found with a personal pronoun or a simple noun: I do not like you/Jim drinking wine. See below for an explanation of this usage. Note that this is a contentious issue. The gerund can be used as: a subject: Drinking wine is enjoyable or Drinking is enjoyable. an object: I enjoy drinking wine or I enjoy drinking. a prepositional object: I do not believe in drinking wine for pleasure or ...drinking for pleasure. a predicate nominal: Jim's idea of fun is drinking large quantities of wine. A gerund can often be replaced by an infinitive with to: I like drinking wine or I like to drink wine. Note on possessives and personal pronouns used with the -ing form NB: Contentious There are several possessive forms in English: possessive pronoun, possessive determiner, and the possessive case of nouns. The first governs or is governed by a verb, not a noun: This book is mine [not Mine book. The second governs or is governed by a noun (or a word acting as a noun), not a verb: my book [not This book is my. The last can govern or be governed by either: This is Helen's book (noun) or This book is Helen's (verb). Furthermore, there is the personal pronoun which also governs or is governed by verbs, not nouns: he saw her [not he book. Since the gerund is technically a verb not a noun it might seem reasonable to assume that it should govern or be governed by a personal pronoun or a possessive pronoun. However, this is not usually accepted as correct because the gerund is in fact acting as a noun while retaining verbal properties. Hence, we have as standard English: Jim does not like my reading magazines. not: Jim does not like me reading magazines. In the first construction, reading is used as a true gerund. The second construction is often disallowed by grammars and the use of the word reading is given names like fused participle and geriple1 since it is seen to confuse a participle with a gerund. The alternate view is to see it as a genuine particle governing a personal pronoun in the objective case (as well as a nouns as an indirect object), but this is not typical. It is more often argued, however, that both of the following are correct but with different meanings: Jim does not like me flying. Jim does not like my flying. The first example seems to imply that Jim does not like my presence in a vehicle that flies whether I am in control of that vehicle or am merely a passenger. Again, this is seen as a participle but this time only governing a direct object without an indirect object. The second example seems to comment on my abilities to control the vehicle rather than my presence in the plane. The second is again a true gerund. It could be rewritten: Jim does not like my act of flying or Jim does not like my attempts at flying. The controversy extends to the use of the possessive case in nouns: Jim does not like Helen flying. Jim does not like Helen's flying. Jim does not like Helen flying airplanes. Jim does not like Helen's flying airplanes. The use of the possessive pronoun is probably best avoided: Jim does not like mine [e.g. my children] flying. Jim does not like mine [e.g. my children] flying airplanes. As is the use of any combination of each of these: Jim does not like my children's flying airplanes. Verbal Nouns The verbal noun is a noun formed from a verb: arrival, drinking, flight, decision. Note that many verbal nouns end in -ing, but they are actually nouns and not verbs. It acts as a normal noun. It can, like other nouns, act as an adjective: a writing desk, building beavers, a flight simulator, departure lounge. History On the history of the verb "be", see Indo-European copula. Verbs had more forms when the pronoun thou was still in regular use and there was a number distinction in the second person. To be, for instance, had art, wast and wert. Irregular verbs in English come from several historical sources; some are technically strong verbs (i.e., their forms display specific vowel changes of the type known as ablaut in linguistics); others have had various phonetic changes or contractions added to them over the history of English.

English verbs possess a number of properties that make them somewhat unusual among other Germanic languages. All English verbs can be derived from a maximum of three principal parts. This represents an extensive paring down of the inflectional categories of the more conservative Germanic languages. Syntax See also: Verb phrases English verbs, like those in many other western European languages, have more periphrastic forms than inflectional forms; verbal forms beyond the ones possible with the five inflectional forms listed above are formed with auxiliary verbs, as are the passive voice forms of these verbs. Important auxiliary verbs in English include will, used to form the future tense, volitional modality, or predictive modality; shall, formerly used mainly for the future tense, but now used mainly for commands and directives; be, which is used in forming the progressive aspect and passive voice; have, which is used to form the perfect (linguistics) tense-aspect combination; and do, which is used for negation, question formation, and intensification. English verbs display complex forms of negation. While simple negation was used well into the period of early Modern English (Touch not the royal person!) in contemporary English negation requires that the negative particle be attached to an auxiliary verb such as do or be. Thus I go not is archaic; I do not go is the modern standard for negating the simple verb in I go, requiring the insertion of the dummy auxiliary do. When the affirmative is periphrasal (I am going), it is negated by the insertion of not (I am not going). Like many other Western European languages, English historically allowed questions to be asked by inverting the positions of verb and subject: Whither goest thou? Modern English requires the use of the auxiliary verb do, along with inversion of the word order, to form a question from a simple (one-word) affirmative (I go → Do I go?, Where do I go?), apart from when the main verb is "be" (I am here → Am I here?, Why am I here?). When the affirmative verb is compound, a question is formed by inverting the auxiliary verb with the subject (John is going → Is John going?). Combining the formation of a question with negation involves both insertion of do, if the verb is not already compound, and inversion of the auxiliary verb with the subject: John is going → Is John not going?; John goes → Does John not go?. However, the word not can optionally (especially in informal English) be contracted with the auxiliary verb, in which case the word order is further changed: Isn't John going?, Doesn't John go?. English does not allow pronoun dropping, and all verbs must have an explicit subject, even where there is no specific agent. Dummy pronouns are inserted even where no agent is identifiable: It is raining. Even sentences that declare the existence of something require a deictic particle to be well formed in English: There is a river. This is a lake. The deixis relates to the tense of the verb. "There" is the default, unmarked particle. Overview of syntactic constructions The English system can be presented systematically by noting that each of the temporal spheres (past, present, future) distinguishes simple forms from the aspects progressive (continuous), perfect, or both. Basic Progressive Perfect Perfect progressive Future I will write I will be writing I will have written I will have been writing Present I write I am writing I have written I have been writing Past I wrote I was writing I had written I had been writing Because of the neatness of this system, modern textbooks on English generally use the terminology in this table: where the "future" time meets the "perfect" aspect we have the "future perfect" tense-aspect combination. This has necessitated minor changes from older terminology. What was traditionally called the "perfect tense" is here called "present perfect" and the "pluperfect" becomes "past perfect", in order to show the relationships of the perfect forms to their respective tenses. The form wrote, which older works by linguists often called the "preterite" and older schoolbooks sometimes called the "imperfect" is here called the "simple past". However, historical linguists sometimes prefer terminology which applies to all Germanic languages and is more helpful for comparative purposes; in this context, the terms "preterite" and "pluperfect" remain common.citation needed Other constructions exist beyond those in the basic table above: the intensive present I do write the intensive past I did write the habitual past I used to write the "going-to future" I am going to write the "future in the past" I was going to write the conditional I would write the perfect conditional I would have written the subjunctive, if I be writing, if I were writing. Other modal verbs, such as "shall" or "may", can be used in the place of "will". Simple constructions The simple constructions can express habitual action. In many contexts they can also express single completed actions. Simple present Affirmative: He writes Negative: He does not write Interrogative: Does he write? Negative interrogative: Does he not write?, Doesn't he write?

The simple present has three main uses in English: First, it often identifies habitual or customary action referring to no specific time frame: He writes about beavers (in the past, present, and future) Second, it is used with stative verbs to refer to a present situation: She knows a lot about beavers Third, it can have a future meaning in two contexts (though its use as an indicator of futurity is much less common than in many other languages): Scheduled future: She goes to Milwaukee on Tuesday Future in a dependent clause: I will see you when I get there, I will go tomorrow if I feel like it The simple present has an intensive or emphatic form with "do": He does write. In the negative and interrogative forms, of course, this is identical to the non-emphatic forms. It is typically used as a response to the question Does he write, whether that question is expressed or implied, and says that indeed, he does write. The different syntactic behavior of the negative particle not and the negative inflectional suffix -n't in the interrogative form is also worth noting. In formal literary English of the sort in which contractions are avoided, not attaches itself to the main verb: Does he not write? When the colloquial contraction -n't is used, this attaches itself to the auxiliary do: Doesn't he write? This in fact is a contraction of a more archaic word order, still occasionally found in poetry: *Does not he write? The passive voice of the simple present is formed using the simple present of to be followed by the past participle (more accurately called the passive participle in this context) of the main verb, as in It is written. Simple past The simple past is also called the preterite. The preterite is used for the English simple (non-iterative or iterative, but not progressive) past tense. He wrote two more chapters about the dam at Kashagawigamog Lake. Affirmative: He wrote Negative: He did not write Interrogative: Did he write? Negative interrogative: Did he not write?, Didn't he write? This tense is used for a single event in the past (I went there yesterday), for past habitual action (I went there every day for a year), and in chronological narration. Like the present simple, it has emphatic forms with "do": he did write. The simple past is distinct from the present perfect: I ate fish (Simple statement of event[s] occurring in the past, with no reference to the present state.) I have eaten fish (My present state is that eating fish is in my past.) The preterite, when used to indicate habitual aspect, can often be replaced by a compound form: When I was young, I played football or When I was young, I played football every Saturday. (past tense unmarked for aspect, but by lexical context implying habituality, with either a specific or a non-specific time frame) When I was young, I used to play football. (periphrastic construction explicitly indicating habituality, with a relatively non-specific time frame in the past) When I was young, I would play football every Saturday. (periphrastic construction explicitly indicating habituality, with a specific time frame in the past) The passive voice of the simple past is formed by the simple past of to be followed by the past participle of the main verb, as in It was written. Simple future English does not have a dedicated future tense in the sense of a form that always indicates what the speaker views as facts about the future. The so-called simple future, often used for that purpose among others, is formed as follows: Affirmative: He will write Negative: He will not write Interrogative: Will he write? Negative interrogative: Will he not write?, Won't he write? Shall can be used in place of will in any of the above to intensify the verb. See the article Shall and Will for a discussion of the two auxiliary verbs used to form the simple future in English. The will form can be used to indicate what the speaker views as facts about the future: The sun will rise tomorrow at 6:14 AM. It can also indicate a combination of futurity and intentional or volitional modality: He will go there if he can. I will pass this exam. It can also indicate predictive modality — what the speaker intends as predictions about the future: It will rain later this week. The will form is occasionally used for statements about the present to indicate that they are speculative: Jack: "I have not eaten a thing all day." Jill: "Well, I suppose you will be hungry now." Jack: "There is a woman coming up the drive." Jill: "That will be my mother." The will form can be used to indicate strong volition in the present in the first person: At this moment I will tolerate no dissent. It can also be used to indicate habituality in the past, present and future: He will make trouble, won't he? There is also a future with "go" which is used with the infinitive of the action verb especially for intended actions and for the weather, and which is generally more common in colloquial speech: I am going to write a book some day. I think that it is going to rain. The will/shall form, however, is preferred for spontaneous decisions: Jack: "I think that we should have a barbecue!" Jill: "Good idea! I shall go get the coal."

The passive voice of the basic future is formed by the simple future of to be followed by the past participle of the main verb: It will be written. Progressive constructions Progressive constructions describe ongoing activity at a specific point of time or continuous activity over an extent of time. Present progressive The present progressive is also known as the present continuous. Affirmative: He is writing Negative: He is not writing Interrogative: Is he writing? Negative interrogative: Is he not writing?, Isn't he writing? This form describes the simple engagement in a present activity, with the focus on action in progress "at this very moment". It too can indicate a future, particularly when discussing plans already in place: I am flying to Paris tomorrow. Used with "always" it suggests irritation; compare He always does that (neutral) with He is always doing that (and it annoys me). Word order differs here in the negative interrogative between the more formal is he not writing and the colloquial contraction isn't he writing? The passive voice of the present progressive is formed by the present progressive of to be followed by the past participle of the main verb, as in It is being written. Past progressive The past progressive form indicates ongoing action in the past, and is sometimes called the past continuous. It is formed by combining the preterite of to be with the present participle (the -ing form) of the main verb. Affirmative: He was writing Negative: He was not writing Interrogative: Was he writing? Negative interrogative: Was he not writing?, Wasn't he writing? This form is typically used for two events in parallel: While I was washing the dishes, my wife was walking the dog. It can also be used for an interrupted action (the past simple being used for the interruption): While I was washing the dishes, I heard a loud noise. Further, it can be used to indicate continuing action at a specific time in the past: At three o'clock yesterday, I was working in the garden. Finally, this form can be used to refer to past action that occurred over a range of time and is viewed as an ongoing situation: I was working in the garden all day yesterday (it was an ongoing process), as opposed to I worked in the garden all day yesterday (and I am viewing all of that action as a unitary event) The passive voice of the past progressive is formed by the past progressive of to be followed by the past participle of the main verb, as in It was being written. Future progressive Affirmative: He will be writing Negative: He will not be writing Interrogative: Will he be writing? Negative interrogative: Will he not be writing?, Won't he be writing? This form is used especially to indicate that an event will be in progress at a particular point in the future: This time tomorrow I will / shall be taking my driving test. The form It will be being written is never used. If it is desired to express future progressivity in the passive voice, the construction It will be in the process of being written can be used. Perfect constructions Perfect constructions are used to express actions or events that happened before a point in time, with an emphasis on the continuing effects of these at this point of time. Present perfect The present perfect was traditionally just called the perfect. Affirmative: He has written Negative: He has not written Interrogative: Has he written? Negative interrogative: Has he not written?, Hasn't he written? This form indicates that a past event has one of a range of possible relationships to the present. This relationship may involve a focus on present result: He has written a very fine book (and look, here it is, we have it now). Alternatively, it may indicate a period which includes the present: I have lived here since my youth (and I still do). Compare: Have you written a letter this morning? (it is still morning) with Did you write a letter this morning? (it is now afternoon). The perfect construction is frequently used with the adverbs already or recently or with since clauses. The present perfect can identify habitual and continuing actions (I have written letters since I was ten years old.), continuous and ongoing actions (I have lived here for fifteen years.), or completed actions that still affect the present situation (I have visited Paris twice (and the memory of the experience is still with me)). In addition to these normal uses where the event is viewed from the present, the “have done” construct is used with a future perspective in temporal clauses where other languages would use the future perfect: When you have written it, show it to me. The term "perfect" was first applied in discussions of Latin grammar, to refer to a tense which expresses a completed action ("perfect" in the sense of "finished"). It was then applied to a French tense which has a similar use to the Latin perfect, and then was transferred to the English tense which looks morphologically something like the French perfect. In fact, the English perfect is often used precisely in situations where Latin would use the imperfect — for past actions which are not finished but continue into the present.

The passive voice of the present perfect is formed by the present perfect of to be followed by the past participle of the main verb, as in It has been written. Past perfect The past perfect is also known as the pluperfect; it is formed by combining the preterite of to have with the past participle of the main verb: Affirmative: He had written Negative: He had not written Interrogative: Had he written? Negative interrogative: Had he not written?, Hadn't he written? The pluperfect is used when the action occurred in the past before another action in the past. It is used when speaking of the past to indicate the relative time of two past actions, one occurring before the other; i.e. a "past before the past". The past time of perspective could be stated explicitly: He had already left when we arrived. or it can be understood from previous information: I was eating....I had invited Jim to the meal but he was unable to attend. (i.e., I invited him before I started eating) The past time of perspective can simply be implied by the context: I had lost my way. (understood as prior to a later but still past event I am now describing, for example, "when I met the bear".) It is sometimes possible to use the simple past instead of the past perfect, but only where there is no ambiguity in the meaning. For instance, the second example above could be written: I was eating....I invited Jim to the meal but he was unable to attend Understood within the above context, this still means that I first invited Jim then later ate the meal (without him). However, concurrent past events are also possible, indicated by dual simple past tenses in both verbs. Consider the following: He left when we arrived. This means both past events happened at the same time: he left at the same time as we arrived. The past perfect can also be used to express a counterfactual statement about the past: If you had done the cleaning by now, you would not need to do it now Here, the first clause refers to an unreal state in the past (without any comparison of the timing of multiple past events), and the entire construction is a conditional sentence. The passive voice of the past perfect is formed by the past perfect of to be followed by the past participle of the main verb: It had been written. Future perfect The future perfect is formed by combining, in this order, will or shall, the auxiliary verb have, and the past participle of the main verb: Affirmative: He will have written Negative: He will not have written Interrogative: Will he have written? Negative interrogative: Will he not have written?, Won't he have written? It indicates an action that either is completed sometime prior to a future time of perspective or an ongoing action that continues to a future time of perspective: I shall have finished my essay by Thursday. By then she will have been there for three weeks. The passive voice of the future perfect is formed by the future perfect of to be followed by the past participle of the main verb: It will have been written. Perfect progressive constructions Perfect progressive constructions are used to express ongoing activity that extends to a certain point in time. Present perfect progressive In English, the present perfect progressive can also be called the present perfect continuous. Affirmative: He has been writing Negative: He has not been writing Interrogative: Has he been writing? Negative interrogative: Has he not been writing?, Hasn't he been writing? It is used for unbroken action in the past which continues right up to the present. I have been writing this paper all morning (and still am). The present perfect continuous is used for denoting the action which was in progress and has just finished or is still going on. For example, Why are your eyes red? – I have been crying since morning. (The action has already finished but was in progress for some time) She has been working here for two years already and she is happy. (The action is still in progress). Sentences referring to an expanse of time use the present perfect continuous if ongoing action (not a static situation) is referred to. For example, How long have you been working here? — I have been working here for three years However, with stative verbs (such as see, want, like, etc.), or if the situation is considered permanent, the present perfect non-progressive form is used. For example, How long have you known her? — I have known her since childhood Thus, if the whole period is referred to, for is used, but when the reference is to the starting point of the action, since is used. The construction It has been being written, while following the usual pattern for the formation of the passive voice, is never used. Occasionally, when it is desired to express the receiving of an action in the past and continuing to the present, the phrasal construction It has been in the process of being written is used. Here the present perfect construction is applied to to be, and the continuity and the passive voice are applied to the main verb in non-finite form in a noun phrase. Past perfect progressive

The past perfect progressive is also known as the pluperfect progressive , the past perfect continuous, and the pluperfect continuous. It is formed by combining, in this order, the preterite of to have, the past participle of to be, and the present participle of the main verb. Affirmative: He had been writing Negative: He had not been writing Interrogative: Had he been writing? Negative interrogative: Had he not been writing?, Hadn't he been writing? The past perfect progressive relates to the past perfect as the present perfect progressive relates to the present perfect. The construction It had been being written is never used. To convey the past perfect progressive in the passive voice, the construction It had been in the process of being written can be used. Future perfect progressive The future perfect progressive, also called the future perfect continuous, is formed by combining, in this order, will or shall, the auxiliary have, the past participle been, and the present participle of the main verb: Affirmative: He will have been writing Negative: He will not have been writing Interrogative: Will he have been writing? Negative interrogative: Will he not have been writing?, Won't he have been writing? This form is used for an event that will still be in progress at a certain point in the future: By 8:00 he will have been writing for five hours (and will still be doing so). The construction It will have been being written is never used. The construction It will have been in the process of being written can be used to indicate the continuous receiving of an action prior to some time in the future. Conditional present The conditional present is formed by combining the modal auxiliary would (never *woulds, not even in the third person singular) with the infinitive (without to) of the main verb: Affirmative: He would write Negative: He would not write Interrogative: Would he write? Negative interrogative: Would he not write?, Wouldn't he write? The conditional present is used principally in a main clause accompanied by an implicit or explicit doubt or "if-clause"; it may refer to conditional statements in present or future time: I would like to pay now if it is not too much trouble. (in present time; doubt of possibility is explicit) I would like to pay now. (in present time; doubt is implicit) I would go tomorrow if she asked me. (in future time; doubt is explicit) I would go tomorrow. (in future time; doubt is implicit) Some varieties of English regularly use would (often shortened to (I)'d) in if clauses, but this is often considered non-standard: If you'd leave now, you'd be on time. Such use of would is widespread especially in spoken US English in all sectors of society, but these forms are not usually used in writing that is more formal. Nevertheless, some reliable sources simply label this usage as acceptable US English and no longer label it as colloquial.23 There are exceptions, however, where would is used in British English too in seemingly counterfactual conditions, but these can usually be interpreted as a modal use of would: If you would listen to me once in a while, you might learn something.45 In cases in which the action in the if clause takes place after that in the main clause, use of would in counterfactual conditions is however considered standard and correct usage in even formal UK and US usage: If it would make Bill happy, I'd [I would] give him the money.4 The passive voice of the conditional present is formed by the conditional present of to be followed by the past participle of the main verb, as in It would be written. Conditional present progressive Affirmative: He would be writing Negative: He would not be writing Interrogative: Would he be writing? Negative interrogative: Would he not be writing?, Wouldn't he be writing? The conditional present progressive (or continuous) is used for the continuous aspect of the conditional form; it describes a situation that would now be prevailing had it not been for some intervening event: Today she would be exercising if it were not for her injury. He would be working today had he not been allowed time off. (For the use of would in both clauses, see note and sources at end of section on conditional above.) The passive voice of the conditional progressive progressive can be formed as It would be being written, but since this form is awkward the form It would be in the process of being written would be more common. Conditional perfect Affirmative: He would have written Negative: He would not have written Interrogative: Would he have written? Negative interrogative: Would he not have written?, Wouldn't he have written? The conditional perfect form is used for conditional situations occurring in the past; it expresses thoughts which are or may be contrary to present fact: I would have set an extra place if I had known you were coming. (The fact that an extra place was not set is implicit; the conditioning event (I had known) is explicit) I would have set an extra place, but I did not because Mother said you were not coming. (The fact that a place was not set is explicit; the conditioning event is implicit) I would have set an extra place. (The fact that a place was not set is implicit, and the conditioning event is implicit)

Some varieties of English regularly use would have (often shortened to (I)'d have) in if clauses, but this is often non-standard: If you (would)'ve told me, we could've done something about it. Such use of would is widespread especially in spoken US English in all sectors of society, but is incorrect and is not usually used in more formal writing. (See note and sources at end of section on conditional above.) There are exceptions, however, where would is used in British English too in seemingly counterfactual conditions, but these can usually be interpreted as a modal use of would: If you would have listened to me once in a while, you might have learned something. In cases in which the action in the if clause takes place after that in the main clause, use of would in if clauses is however considered standard and correct usage in even formal UK and US usage: If it would have made Bill happy, I'd [I would] have given him the money. (See note and sources at end of section on conditional above.) The passive voice of the conditional perfect is formed as the conditional perfect of to be followed by the past participle of the main verb: It would have been written. Conditional perfect progressive Affirmative: He would have been writing. Negative: He would not have been writing. Interrogative: Would he have been writing? Negative interrogative: Would he not have been writing?, Wouldn't he have been writing? (For the use of would in both clauses, see note and sources at end of the section on conditional above.) Rather than the never-used awkward construction It would have been being written, the conditional perfect progressive can be expressed in the passive voice as in It would have been in the process of being written. Present subjunctive This form is always identical to the infinitive. This means that apart from the verb to be, it is distinct from the indicative present only in the third person singular and the obsolete second person singular. It is used to express wishes about the present or future: God save our queen. (Not: God saves our queen, which means that it actually happens) It can be used (in formal writing) to express present doubt, especially after if, whether, and lest and in set phrases: If that have any validity.... If that be true,.... If he need go,.... If music be the food of life,.... Whether that be true or not,.... Lest he arrive too soon,.... Be that as it may,.... The subordinate conjunction whether can be replaced by inversion of be and the subject: Be that true or not,.... It is also used in a mandative sense: He insists that his son have a more conventional celebration. (He strongly wants that to be true in the future; contrast with the indicative usage He insists that his son has a more conventional celebration, in which he asserts that it is a fact.) It is important that the process be carried out accurately. I shall work for him on condition that he pay me weekly. The present subjunctive can be written in the passive voice as in If it be written,.... Imperfect subjunctive The imperfect subjunctive is used to express hypotheses about the present or future: it is used to describe unreal or hypothetical conditions. It consists of the verb were in all persons and numbers (including the first and third persons singular), either as the main verb or as a helping verb combined with the infinitive of the main verb. It usually appears in "if clauses" of conditional sentences. Examples include: If I were rich, I would retire to the South of France. If I were a boy,.... Especially in formal usage, if may be omitted and the order of the subject and were inverted: Were I to speak, I would do so softly. (This is identical in meaning to If I were to speak,....) When if means when (a fact) then the indicative is used. Compare If I were walking down the road, I would greet him. (The subjunctive is used for a hypothetical present situation; the main clause is in the conditional.) If I was walking down the road, I would greet him. (The indicative is used for a fact about habitual actions in the past; the main clause is in the past time and habitual aspect.) The imperfect subjunctive is also used in "that clauses" after a wish: I'd rather that it were more substantial. I wish she were here. This last example can be contrasted with I want her to be here, in which the indicative rather than the subjunctive is used because there is a substantial possibility that the hypothesis is (or will be) true. The imperfect subjunctive can be written in the passive voice as in If it were written.... or Were it written.... Future subjunctive A future subjunctive for use in "if clauses" can be constructed using the conjugated form of the verb "to be" plus the infinitive (including the particle to) or by using the modal auxiliary verb "should" (though the should form is very unusual in American English): If I were to die tomorrow, then you would inherit everything. If I should go, then will / would you feed the hens? These forms can alternatively be expressed with inversion of the order of were or should and the subject, with if omitted: Were I to die tomorrow, then you would inherit everything. Should I go, then will / would you feed the hens?

If the were to form is used in the "if clause", the conditional form would is used in the main clause; if the should form is used in the "if clause", either will or would can be used in the main clause, depending on whether the event is very hypothetical (leading to the use of would) or is quite possible (permitting the use of will). The passive voice can be applied to the future subjunctive as in any of the following: If it were to be written tomorrow,.... Were it to be written tomorrow,.... If it should be written tomorrow,.... or Should it be written tomorrow,.... Modal constructions Main article: English modal verb English has thirteen modal verbs: would, will, should, shall, may, might, can, could, must, ought, had better, dare, and need. All of these serve as auxiliary verbs that are uninflected, even in the third person singular. Most of these have multiple modal uses, depending on context. With the exception of ought, all are followed by the short form of the main verb's infinitive (that is, without the particle to). The last two of these, dare and need, are infrequently used as modals and are much more frequently used instead as main verbs that are inflected with -s in the present tense third person singular; when they are used as main verbs, the infinitive following them includes the particle to. See also Conditional sentence English irregular verbs English modal verb English passive voice Wiktionary appendix: Irregular English verbs Northern subject rule Verbification English conjugation tables Notes ^ Penguin guide to plain English, Harry Blamires (Penguin Books Ltd., 2000) ISBN 978-0-14-051430-8 pp.144-146 ^ http://www.perfectyourenglish.com/writing/american-and-british-usage-2.htm "Conditional would is sometimes used in both clauses of an if-sentence. This is common in spoken American English." ^ Pearson Longman, Longman Exams Dictionary, grammar guide: It is possible to use would in both clauses in US English but not in British English: US: The blockades wouldn't happen if the police would be firmer with the strikers. Br: The blockades wouldn't happen if the police were firmer with the strikers. ^ a b http://www.lingua.org.uk/eq&a.html ^ http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=5478593&postcount=6 To stress willingness of wish, you can use would or will in both clauses of the same sentence: If the band would rehearse more, they would play better. If the band will rehearse more, they will play better. Both mean the same. (based on the examples and explanations from Practical English Usage, Michael Swan, Oxford) References Gilman, E. Ward (editor in chief) Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (Merriam-Webster, 1989) ISBN 0-87779-132-5 Greenbaum, Sidney. The Oxford English Grammar. (Oxford, 1996) ISBN 0-19-861250-8 McArthur, Tom, The Oxford Companion to the English Language (Oxford, 1992) ISBN 0-19-863136-7 External links For a list of words relating to English verbs, see the English verbs category of words in Wiktionary, the free dictionary Look up Appendix:English verbs in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. The Wikibook English/English in use has a page on the topic of Verbs Using English verb tenses - usefulcharts.com ENGLISH VERB TENSES Intensive English Institute, University of Illinois Sequence of Tenses at the Online Writing Lab at Purdue University Modals and auxiliary verbs in English English Verb Conjugation and Inflectional Morphology English Grammar Worksheets The English Verb Tense System: A dynamic presentation using the Cuisenaire Rods