Past tense

Learn about the different past tense forms (past simple, past continuous and past perfect) and do the exercises to practise using them.

Level: intermediate

Past tense

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 (when we imagine something)
for politeness.

There are four past tense forms in English:

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 there since July.

to refer to the present or future in hypotheses:

It might be dangerous. Suppose they got lost.

This use is very common in wishes:

I wish it wasn't so cold.

and in conditions with if:

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

For hypotheses, wishes and conditions in the past, we use the past perfect:

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

and also 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.

Past tense 1: MultipleChoice_MTYzMjA=
Past tense 2: GapFillTyping_MTYzMjE=

Do you need to improve your English grammar?

Join thousands of learners from around the world who are improving their English grammar with our online courses.

Find out more

Hi, Why in Wikipedia pages we change verb from “is” to “was” when a person dies? Like Ernest Hemingway “was” a novelist. He does not write in a period of his lifetime and quit after that, so why shouldn’t we use “is” after his death?

Hello Fiona,

There are times when we do use the present simple to talk about the past, but in a text from an encyclopedia, the general style is to use the past to speak about a person who is no longer alive.

I'm not sure if I've answered your question, so please ask again if you have any other doubts about this.

All the best,

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello Kirk, Thanks for answering, but I do still have something hope you can clarify for me. My concern is that, novelist seems to be an general description, a status may not be changed if a person dies or not. If I say, “Hemingway was a journalist in his 20’s”, I may think of it as he once was a journalist, but had something else for making a living afterwards. Other similar examples would be like “Einstein was a physicist”, or “Mozart was a musician”, which seem to be general facts for me. So I was wondering why we don’t use present tense in these circumstances. Thanks for answering.

Hello again Fiona,

I can see what you mean, but I'm afraid that using the present tense to talk about Einstein, Mozart or Hemingway would be non-standard in most situations in English. I say 'most situations' because maybe there is some very specific one where it would work, but I can't think of one.

In some other Indo-European languages (for example, Spanish or Catalan), a present tense can be used in the way you suggest, but in English it isn't. I might suggest you think of the present simple as a tense for things that are always true (e.g. the sun is a star, winter begins in June in Argentina, etc.) rather than as for general facts, which is a category that's a bit too wide I think.

By the way, it is possible to use the present tense in English to speak about past events when you are telling a story or summarising something you have heard, read or seen (e.g. a film). Note that in both cases, the speaker is showing a kind of personal perspective, and so this wouldn't be appropriate for speaking about historical figures in most contexts.

Hope this clarifies it for you, but don't hesitate to ask again if you have any other questions.

All the best,

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

I got your point! Thanks a lot!!

The more I teach English, the sorrier I feel for its learners. Fiona: as Kirk says, we do say Hemingway "was" a novelist, because once he is dead he is no longer a novelist: he does not exist. But as Kirk suspected, "maybe there is some very specific [situation] where "was" would work, but I can't think of one." Interestingly, I would say "Hemingway **is** my favourite author" [he isn't, actually; I hate him!] because my **liking** of him occurs in present time. It would take several thousand words of philosophical abstraction to unpick this, but trust me: If I said "Mozart was my favourite composer", the implication would plainly be that he is no longer. Mozart was a great composer. Mozart is my favourite composer.

Hello Peter,

I think you're being a little harsh on the English language here! It is quite logical, but it's important to approach the meaning in the right way. This means not focusing on the action of the verb but rather the time frame in which it occurs. For example:

Cormack McCarthy wrote novels in his 20s.

The past tense is used here not because the action is no longer true - Cormack McCarthy is still writing novels, after all. However, we have a closed (finished) time reference and so the action is complete in that sense.

When the time reference is not closed, we use a present tense:

Cormack McCarthy has been writing novels since his 20s.

Cormack McCarthy is a novelist.

On the other hand, when no time reference is given, the past tense indicates that the action itself is complete and no longer current, while the present tense indicates that the action is still true:

Cormack McCarthy lived in Tennessee.

Cormack McCarthy lives in New Mexico.

Thus, as you say, 'Mozart was my favourite composer' would mean that something has changed and Mozart is no longer your favourite. On the other hand, if you include a finished past time reference then it could still be true:

Mozart was my favourite composer when I was a student, and he's still my favourite composer today.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello. Which one is correct? - Now fewer children and mothers have health problems than they (had - did) 100 years ago. Thank you

Hello Ahmed Imam,

The correct form is 'had' because the verb here is 'have'. We say 'have health problems' not 'do'.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello. Could you help me clear my confusion? Which one is correct? Why? 1- I'd rather Tom slept than (watch - watched) TV. 2- I'd rather Tom had slept than (watch - watched - had watched) TV yesterday. Thank you.

Hello. Could you please reply to my question? Thank you.

Hi Ahmed Imam,

This is a bit complicated but I'll try to explain! Let's start with the most likely options.

I'd rather Tom slept than watched TV.
I'd rather Tom had slept than had watched TV yesterday.
I'd rather Tom had slept than watched TV yesterday.

In these sentences, the second verb is done by Tom. Notice that the second verb is in the same tense as the first verb (e.g. slept and watched - past simple). This is because if a speaker offers two options for an activity, as in these examples, they are almost certainly in the same timeframe.

The third example above uses just watched, but it's still the past perfect tense. That's because it follows had slept (past perfect). There's no need to repeat the auxiliary verb had.

Below are some meanings that are less likely, but are still grammatically possible.

I'd rather Tom slept than watch TV.
I'd rather Tom had slept than watch TV yesterday.

These two sentences have a different meaning. Watch can follow I'd rather (= I'd rather watch). So in these sentences, watch TV means the speaker (not Tom) watching TV. For example, in the first sentence, the speaker prefers that Tom slept instead of the speaker him/herself watching TV.

So, overall, all the options are grammatically correct - but the first group of examples are the most likely meanings. Does that make sense?

We try to answer questions as quickly as we can. At busy times it may take a little longer :)

Best wishes,

Jonathan

The LearnEnglish Team

1 - Watch, because we are talking about something that is happening right now. 2 - Watched, because the word "yesterday" indicates that we are talking about the past. We don't say had watched because we already said "had" in "Tom HAD slept".

Hello peter, "who ate all my cookies?" and "who has eaten all my cookies". "I ate all the cookies." and "I have ate all the cookies." Does these pairs of sentences differ in meaning . If so ,what is the differences. Thanks .

Hello Peterlam,

Yes, there is a difference in meaning between the past simple ('I ate') and the present perfect ('I have eaten'). The past simple form speaks about an event that we considered finished and entirely in the past ('Yesterday I ate all the cookies' -- yesterday is clearly a time that has already passed), whereas the present perfect form shows that we think there is still a connection to the present ('I have eaten all the cookies' -- here perhaps we are both looking at the plate where the cookies were before I ate them, and which now only has crumbs on it. We can still see the results of my recent past action.).

You can read more about this and see other examples on our Talking about the past page.

Hope this helps you make sense of it.

All the best,

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Informal question: Back in the day, we didn't got/get any vehicles to move around . what to use get/got ? in regards to possesiveness equivalent formal sentence is Back in the day, we didn't have any vehicles to move around .

Hello lima9795,

Get when used as a main verb means something similar to receive. For possession, we don't use get as a main verb but rather in the form have got (had got etc). In your example, you could replace didn't have with hadn't got.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello. Could you please help me? Is the following sentence correct? - Nobody has come to see us since we lived in our new house. Thank you. I appreciate your help.

Hello Ahmed Imam,

That's not quite right. We would use the verb 'moved (to)' rather than 'lived (in)':

Nobody has come to see us since we moved to our new house.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello. Could you please help me? Which sentence is correct? If both are correct, what is the difference between them? - When she left school, she learnt many things and decided to be a teacher. - When she left school, she had learnt many things and decided to be a teacher. Thank you.

Hello Ahmed Imam,

Both sentences are grammatically possible.

The first sentence (she left) implies the following sequence: first she left school, then she learnt many things.

The first sentence (she had left) implies the following sequence: first she learn many things, then she left school.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello. What's wrong with the following sentence? I think it is OK. - I did my homework when the telephone rang. Thank you.

I was doing my homework when the telephone rang.

India went on to win after following-on at Eden gardens or India went on to won after following-on at Eden gardens which is correct

Hello Badagoni.Naresh,

'went on to win' is the correct form. In this case, the phrasal verb 'to go on' is followed by an infinitive.

All the best,

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello sir I have an another example We know When we change Imperative Sentence(Direct Speech) into Indirect Speech we use "to" to join two clauses. Like He said to me"Come here."(Direct Speech) He ordered me to come here.(Indirect Speech) We know that the Indirect Speech is also a Simple Sentence which has a finite verb(Ordered). If we change this Simple sentence into a complex sentence. He ordered me to come here.(Simple sentence) He ordered me that I come/came here.(Complex Sentence) Which verb is preferable here. My doubt regarding to this question is that can we assume this order as an Indirect Order if it is an Indirect Order then the verb must be Base form of verb.

Hello Kapil Kabir,

I'm afraid ...ordered me that I... is not a correct construction, irrespective of the form of the verb which follows.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello Sir, how do we use Sequence of tenses in a correct manner. Like, that clause(Sub ordinate Clause) follows Each tense in sub ordinate clause.

Hello Kapil Kabir

There are explanations of this on our Reported speech 1, 2 and 3 pages. Please have a look at those pages and try the exercises on them. If you have any further question, don't hesitate to ask us on one of those pages.

All the best

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

I wanna ask that Which is correct I want to buy the house which we had seen yesterday Or I want to buy the house which we have seen yesterday

Hello Santinder,

As presented and without any other context, neither sentence is correct. The present perfect (have seen) is not used in a finished time context (yesterday). The past perfect (had seen) is only used when there is a second past reference, not a present time reference (want).

The most natural way to form this sentence is with a past simple verb:

I want to buy the house which we saw yesterday.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Thanks sir you cleared my doubt

I have question If I have visited place and I am describing it should I refer to present simple or past simple and also the people if I am talking about my someone at past but i wanna say they are kind for ex should I use present simple or past simple Thanks in advance

Hello Marmar234

You can choose whether to speak about it in the present or in the past. In general, if you want to focus on your visit and your experience there, the past is probably a better choice. If you want to focus on the place, then the present might make more sense. The same is true for speaking about people.

You might find the Talking about the past page useful.

All the best

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

It is actually an introduction. Now I know why it is so. Thank you so much, I highly appreciate.

Hi there, Fight to enemy or fight enemy? Which one is correct and why? Thanks in advance

Hello mehransam05

'to' is not used before the object of the verb 'fight' -- we just say 'fight the enemy' here.

All the best

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Please it not clear to me why I should use "is" and past tense in the following context (where chapter x has already been written): In chapter x concept y "is presented". I was expecting: In chapter x concept y "was presented".

Hello Baruwanku

I can't say for sure without knowing the context, but, for example, if this is the introduction to a book, since it is explaining the contents of the book, which still exists, the present tense makes sense. If you were explaining an event that happened in the past, then the past tense would be better.

All the best

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Help with the tenses please- "Back in college, i came to know she had a boyfriend who she had been dating for a while" - is this sentence correct considering the could is still dating?

Hello Anubhav

That is grammatically correct. It indicates that she had the boyfriend in the past (when you were in college), but it doesn't say anything about the moment of speaking.

All the best

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Hi Peter & Kirk, I always get confused using the verb think in past form. Ex- I thought Alisha was still with me that morning. I was thinking Alisha was still with me that morning. Could you please explain me the meaning of these two sentences and when to use "thought" and "was thinking" in a sentence with example.

Hi jitu_jaga,

When we express a point of view or an opinion we use the simple form, whether in the present or past:

I think this is a great film!

I thought he was very nice last night.

When we want to use 'think' to mean 'consider' then we can use the continuous form:

I'm thinking about buying a new car.

She was thinking of changing her job, but in the end she decided to stay where she was.

Occasionally, you can find examples of the continous form used to emphasise an opinion which changed, but this is quite unusual:

I was thinking it was a good film until I saw the ending.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Thank you Dear Peter. Have a nice day..

He smelt strongly of rum. Is smelt a verb in this sentence. Thank you

Hello sumanasc

Yes, it is a past simple form. You can find this kind of information in a good dictionary (follow the link).

All the best

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Sir I need to know the verbs in the following sentences. I think they are, smelt, filled, squawking and circling. please let me know whether I am correct. The air smelt of wood smoke and my ears were filled with the sound of squawking birds circling above. Thank you

Hello sumansc,

Those verbs seem fine to me.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Hi teachers, i noticed this entence : sorry to keep you waiting . If i was gonna use it in the past could i rewrite that in the following way: i was sorry to keep you waiting or i am supposed to write that like this : i am sorry to have kept you waiting . Thanks in advance, i hope you will be fine.

Hello rosario70

Both are possible, but are slightly different in meaning. The first one means that you felt sorry in the past -- you could also say 'I was sorry to have kept you waiting' but there's not much difference between it and your first suggestion -- and the second one means that you feel sorry now.

All the best

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team