3 ms·
"By next month I will have had run 50 km" - is there a BETTER way to say this sentence? It refers to the past from the prism of next month, but also RELATES it
by iopq 4y ago
"By next month I will have had run 50 km" - is there a BETTER way to say this sentence?
It refers to the past from the prism of next month, but also RELATES it to that point in time
"If I had continued boxing professionally, I would have been running 50 km a week"
Here's it's a conditional, I think I stuck an extra had in there by accident.
By my English textbook there's 16 tenses, 4x4
Past, present, future, future-in-the-past (would)
x
Simple, continuous, perfect, continuous-perfect (have been V-ing)
Point being, English grammar is far from simple, as this conversation clearly demonstrated
- klodolph 4y ago> "By next month I will have had run 50 km" - is there a BETTER way to say this sentence? By next month, I will have run 50km. This means that "I run 50km" completes first, and then next month arrives afterwards. > By my English textbook there's 16 tenses, 4x4 Depends on how you count tenses. Different textbooks will give different counts, depending on what is considered a "tense". Which is not a reflection of the complexity of English, but a reflection of how hard it is to come up with definitions for terms in linguistics. "Would" is often not counted as a tense, but it may be counted as a tense, particularly if you are explaining English to speakers of a language which have a tense expressing something similar. > Point being, English grammar is far from simple, as this conversation clearly demonstrated Most languages are far from simple, I don't think English deserves special attention.