There are two tenses in English – past and present.

The past tense in English is used:

  • to talk about the past
  • to talk about hypotheses – things that are imagined rather than true.
  • for politeness.

There are four past tense forms in English:

Tense Form
Past simple: I worked
Past continuous: I was working
Past perfect: I had worked
Past perfect continuous: I had been working

We use these forms:

  • to talk about the past:

He worked at McDonald’s. He had worked there since July..
He was working at McDonald’s. He had been working since July.

  • to refer to the present or future in conditions:

He could get a new job if he really tried.
If Jack was playing they would probably win.

and hypotheses:

It might be dangerous. Suppose they got lost.
I would always help someone who really needed help.

and wishes:

I wish it wasn’t so cold.

  • In conditions, hypotheses and wishes, if we want to talk about the past, we always use the past perfect:

I would have helped him if he had asked.
It was very dangerous, What if you had got lost?
I wish I hadn’t spent so much money last month.


  • We can use the past forms to talk about the present in a few polite expressions:

Excuse me, I was wondering if this was the train for York.
I just hoped you would be able to help me.



How exactly do these differ and what purpose do the clear inconsistencies severe.

Prn. - Pat. - Prt. - Fut.
I. Was - Am - Will be
He, She, it. Was - Is - Will be
You, We, they. Were - Are - Will be
I, You, We, They. Had - Have - Will have
He, She, it. Had - Has - Will have
I, You, We, They. Did - do - Will do
He, She, it. Did - does - Will do

Hello D.Delicour,

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean. They differ exactly as you can see: different forms have different meanings (primarily in terms of time reference). As to the purpose of inconsistences the question presupposes that there is a defined purpose for linguistic structures and this is not the case. Languages grow organically through use and the systems and rules we have are descriptive, not proscriptive. In other words, we describe language as it is conventionally used; we do not set rules which must then be followed. Whether or not there are inconsistences is simply the result of how hundreds of millions of people use the language and how it evolves over time. There is no plan to this; it is organic, as I said.


Best wishes,


The LearnEnglish Team

I was just curious of how these arbitrary rules came to pass. I wanted to be sure primarily for an artificial auxiliary language, I am trying to construct, for personal use.

English is flatteringly praised for its grammatical freedom, and I want to emulate that while keeping the constructions sound fluidity flawless.

I have titled the language Braic. I have only yet written the rudiments.



I/Me - fó. My/Mine - fón. We/Us (speaker and affiliate) - feí. Our/Ours (speaker and affiliate) - feín
You - vó. Your/Yours - vón. You (listener and affiliate) - veí. Your/Yours (listener and affiliate) - veín
He/Him/She/Her/It - dó. His/Her/Hers/Its - dón. They - deí. Their - deín
We/Us (speaker and listener) - úó. Our/Ours (speaker and listener) - úón. We/Us (multiple speakers and/or listeners) - úeí. Our/Ours (multiple speakers and/or listeners) - úéín.

Possessive -n/-en
Plural -eí


some general rules:

noun -a (ex. coúva - government)
relating to -i (ex. coúvi - governmental)
verb -ec (ex. coúvec - govern)
adjective/adverb -d/-yd (ex. véd - green)

past particable -t/tic (ex. adect - added / tic adec - did add)
present partisable -té/téc (ex. adecté - adding / téc adec - am/is/are adding)
future particable -tó/tóc (ex.adectó - n/a / tóc adec - will add)

able -ází/áq (ex. kótáq/kótází - thinkable)
-ish/-esque -eck (ex. flyúeck - dampish)
-er -* (ex. leíb* - worker)

plural -eí (ex. ecpieí - Spaiards)
possesive -n/-en (ex. Danteín - Dantes / Deímíenen - Damions)

and so on...

Hello D.Delicour,

That sounds like a great project. I'd suggest you do an internet search for 'conlang', as I bet you could find others interested in your work.

All the best,
The LearnEnglish Team

Language Construction has always been a minor hobby of mine. Now I would really like to put all the knowledge I have acquired to good use. I want my language to be consistent in its phonetics while maintaining exceptional grammatical freedom. The language isn't designed for beauty, but instead for simplicity, spoken ease and concise wording. It is made to tackle dyslexia.

for example...
English - By that time my friends had all but lost hope.
Braic - cera fón freneí evé ludec epra. (sera forn frenay ever loodess epra)
English - The green gardens were laden with red roses.
Braic - ly véd edeneí latect en ru floreí. (liver dedenay latesten roo flo-ray.)
English - life in pink.
Braic - laía ne pas. (lie-anep-ash.

Is it okay if I write "this photo was taken blurred"? Actually I want to understand that the photo wasn't clear.

Hello abc96,

'Blurred' is an adjective, not an adverb, and so should describe the photo itself, not the way in which it was taken. You can say 'The/This photo is (a bit/slightly) blurred', for example.


Best wishes,


The LearnEnglish Team

But wouldn't that mean his sentence was still grammatically correct?

'The thief was caught stealing'. In this example "stealing" describes the thief, rather than the act of getting caught. Though it will be said, your advice is well put.

Hello D.Delicour,

The position of the word means that it can only be an adverb. 'Blurred' cannot function as an adverb, however. It could be an adjective if it preceded the noun ('The blurred photo...'), but then the sentence itself would be highly unnatural: all photos which exist have been taken and so a sentence announcing this fact would be very odd.


Best wishes,


The LearnEnglish Team

you're right, that does make sense. Though, could it be said, that 'blurred', in this instance, was used, not to denote the past participle, but as a descriptor of its state or quality in being blurred?